Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read. To be further considered on Monday 15 May.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET OFFICE

The Minister was asked—

Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)

Mr. John Smith: What measures she is taking to tackle the under-representation of ethnic minorities in the civil service. [120432]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): The Government have a strong commitment to equal opportunities. It is our determination that the public sector is fully representative of the community of the whole of the United Kingdom. To that end, we have set targets at all levels of the civil service and in all Departments. Recently, Mr. Museji Ahmed Takolia has been taken on as a senior adviser on equal opportunities and particularly on the recruitment of people from ethnic minority communities.

Mr. Smith: I greatly welcome my hon. Friend's reply and especially the appointment of a senior adviser to oversee these matters. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an important role in going to schools throughout the country to try to recruit youngsters from ethnic minorities into the civil service? Does he also agree that we should target recruitment in certain regions of the United Kingdom? In evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, it was pointed out that, in south Wales, which has one of the oldest black communities in the UK, integration in public service and the civil service is not satisfactory. It would be helpful if we targeted resources accordingly.

Mr. Stringer: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I agree completely that there is a responsibility on all Ministers, Members of Parliament and people in official positions to explain how young people from schools and universities can gain access to the civil service. There is also a responsibility to ensure that, when people from

ethnic minorities gain access to jobs in the civil service, it is seen as a fair and just place for those people to work. Last year, a careers fair was organised entirely for the purpose of attracting ethnic minorities into the civil service. It was extremely well attended—by 1,500 people in all. That fair will be repeated this year.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Minister guarantee that only those with the appropriate skills and qualifications will be recruited to and promoted in the civil service?

Mr. Stringer: It is clearly this Government's policy that people who are appointed will be the best for the job. The same will apply to promotion. Statistics, particularly in respect of the top of the civil service, show a certain amount of unfairness. People from different communities in this country are not being attracted into those jobs. We must proactively do something about that without discriminating in the other direction.

Anti-drugs Strategy

Mr. Jim Murphy: What recent discussions she has had with the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator on measures to tackle drug abuse. [120433]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): I hold regular meetings with the anti-drugs co-ordinator to discuss all aspects of Government policy.

Mr. Murphy: I am sure that my right hon. Friend accepts that too many young people use and experiment with drugs. Is she aware of the recent editorial in The Daily Telegraph, which stated that the Government should
experiment with legislation to legalise cannabis?
Such a solution may make sense in the cosy confines of the offices of the editor of The Daily Telegraph, but it would not resolve the real-life problems of families throughout the country. Will she reassure me and my constituents that, in discussions on anti-drugs strategy, there will be no consideration whatever of changes to drugs legislation?

Marjorie Mowlam: The Government have made their position clear on cannabis and ecstasy in response to the recommendations of the recent Police Foundation report: no change. However, I always believe that there is room for discussion and debate on such issues; that is part of a good, open, democratic society. We shall, of course, consider—as we are now—many of the recommendations of the Police Foundation, and we hope to make many of them active policy very soon. We have a 10-year strategy that has four parts: treatment, stopping availability of drugs, prevention and working particularly with young people. I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes that.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: When will the Government stop making criminals of people with long-term neurological disease and painful terminal illnesses, and allow the use of cannabis for medical purposes?

Marjorie Mowlam: We are examining that. We have scientific research that is close to completion, and research


is also being done on synthesising particular constituents of the cannabis plant to make substances available that are not cannabis. I cannot give the hon. Lady a direct answer on when, but like her, I hope that it will be soon.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Minister agree that one way that we can get the message across is by getting to young people at a very early stage, as Life Education does in Lancashire, where it has three Rotary-sponsored vehicles—and is about to get a fourth—that go around primary schools? Will the Minister send congratulations on those efforts?
Now and again, rock musicians such as Cerys Matthews come out with irresponsible messages to magazines such as New Musical Express. What action can be taken to ensure that we hear responsible messages from rock stars, so that they serve as examples to young people, showing that they can enjoy themselves without the dangers of drugs?

Marjorie Mowlam: I believe that education is an essential part of prevention in relation to drugs. We are working hard with education authorities and schools. Well over 60 per cent. of primary schools and well over 90 per cent. of secondary schools provide some education about drugs, and progress is being made.
Pop stars are individuals and make their own choices in life. I am not about to start dictating to them what they should say in public. However, I think that mentoring makes a difference; it helps. If people go into schools and speak about what they have done in their lives, that is extremely useful, whether they are ex-football players, ex-policemen or, God forbid, ex-Members of Parliament. All that helps, from both men and women. When I go round schools now, I notice that the girls asking the questions are confident. I think that the boys need more role models. I ask the hon. Gentleman to visit the schools in Lancashire.

Dr. Brian Iddon: Is the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator working closely with the rough sleepers initiative to encourage drug misusers to come off our streets, hopefully into treatment programmes? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Winter Comfort case in Cambridge is causing great concern among those working with rough sleepers? Will the Government please give guidance to field workers?

Marjorie Mowlam: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the drug unit and the social exclusion unit rough sleepers initiative work closely together, because many rough sleepers are exposed to drugs and some become addicts. To realise the extent of the problem, one has only to walk home from this place late at night and see the homeless being propositioned by drug pushers.
On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I agree that the Winter Comfort problem in Cambridge is a difficult issue. It is hard for me to comment in detail, because it is still under legal review. [Interruption.] I assure my hon. Friend that we are watching the court case and will study the options that are open afterwards. As always is the case, I am not sure that we have all the

facts, but the problem needs to be addressed. We have looked at how it is dealt with in other countries to learn from them what we could put in place in this country.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: What is her policy on the use of the media in the delivery of the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [120435]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): The Government's anti-drugs communications strategy is co-ordinated by Keith Hellawell and his team. Resources for communications form part of the funding for the drug prevention action service and local drug action teams so that they can tailor publicity to local needs. Work is also being done nationally through the Health Education Authority. We welcome the work of the Metropolitan police through their "Rat on a Rat" campaign, which is yielding results in London.

Mrs. Winterton: Since the publication of the Broadcasting Standards Commission report, "Knowing the Score", which was published with the British Board of Film Classification, has the right hon. Lady met representatives of the BBC and the Independent Television Commission to discuss the glamorising of drug use in fictional and factual programming, and the gratuitous coverage of drug use on the news? The latter causes particular anxiety.

Marjorie Mowlam: I have not met representatives of the BBC or the ITC, but we have examined high-profile campaigning and the use of images of drug takers in the media. Our results show that while such high-profile coverage does not help, it does not hinder as much as many people believe.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Should we not congratulate Fulcrum television, which set up a commission on drugs and, like the Police Foundation, visited many parts of the world, and reached precisely the same conclusion? It was "impressed" that, after 20 years of decriminalisation in Holland, less cannabis is used, and in safer forms, by all generations in the Netherlands than in Britain. We should start telling the truth about the success of decriminalisation in the Netherlands and stop misrepresenting it.

Marjorie Mowlam: As I said earlier, we made the Government's position clear in our response to the Police Foundation; I leave it to my hon. Friend to respond to Fulcrum.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the points that the right hon. Lady has been making. However, I was struck recently by a comment that George Best made in a film about him. He said that drugs were a no-no, after acknowledging his mistakes about other matters. It is important to encourage the media to set more positive examples of life style. It is not enough to claim that they represent reality. As an old friend of mine used to say, rats are a reality, but we do not allow them in the kitchen.

Marjorie Mowlam: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing everything we can in schools and throughout society to try to get our message on prevention across.


Our research shows that the best way to reach young people is not by dictating to them, but by getting someone—for example, a footballer or a Member of Parliament—to go to schools and youth clubs to talk to them about the problem. That makes a difference, because young people can ask questions and interact with the visitor. However, I do not deny the hon. Gentleman's basic statement. We all agree that just saying no is crucial.

Mr. David Winnick: Up to now, I have opposed any change in policy, for the reasons that Members of all parties have given. Nevertheless, I have now reached a different conclusion. There should be a wide-ranging debate because the current policy, certainly on cannabis, does not work. It makes criminals or semi-criminals of otherwise law-abiding people. The Police Foundation report will be the subject of a hearing by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in the near future. I hope that my right hon. Friend and members of both Front-Bench teams will listen carefully to the evidence of the chairperson of the Police Foundation on the reasons for its conclusions.

Marjorie Mowlam: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I look forward to the Select Committee report and I welcome debate on the issue.

"Listening to Older People"

Mr. Paul Burstow: When the final "Listening to Older People" event will take place; and if she will make a statement. [120436]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): The Government take listening and responding to older people very seriously. That is why we launched last May our "Listening to Older People" programme. Eleven "Listening to Older People" events took place throughout the country last year. This stage of the programme culminates in a national listening event in London on 17 May, where we will launch a programme of action to respond to the issues raised during the listening programme.

Mr. Burstow: Can the Minister tell the House whether at any of the "Listening to Older People" meetings the question of the wide variation in home-care charges was raised with Ministers? Today, the Audit Commission has revealed the stark reality of exceedingly wide variations of charges throughout the country. It has exposed the fact also that one in three councils are driving pensioners into poverty by their charging policies. What will the Government do about this? Will they announce concrete action at the final conference on 17 May?

Mr. Stringer: Yes, care charges were discussed at the events that took place. The Government will respond later this year to the Audit Commission's report, which was published today, as we will respond to the royal commission report on care later this year.

Ms Linda Perham: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that this series of events proves that we are widening the debate beyond pensions issues for older people and engaging with ordinary individuals? We have already introduced a wide range of measures for

older people. Will my hon. Friend comment on the progress of the better government for older people programme?

Mr. Stringer: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is right. The 28 pilot projects that arose from the better government for older people programme covered a range of areas of concern for elderly people, from action against crime to better responsiveness by the health service, better transport and precise care for Asian elders in Bolton. The projects are at the end of their natural life, but I suspect that the local authorities that sponsored them will continue with much of the work that was undertaken while the Government assess and evaluate the projects.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Does the Minister realise that pensioners do not believe that the Government are listening to them? In the document that launched his programme, the Prime Minister said:
financial security is crucial for older people.
Will the Minister explain why the Government have raised council taxes by more than three times the rate of inflation, abolished the married couples allowance for those becoming pensioners, increased the level of tax on pensioners with modest savings and imposed a £5 billion tax on pension funds for those who will become pensioners?

Mr. Stringer: From my experience of listening to elderly people, they know exactly what the Conservative party did during its time in office. They remember that the Conservative Government removed the link between earnings and pensions and thereby created the greatest diversity of income among pensioners in western Europe. They know also—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge and confirm this—that the Conservatives propose to abolish the minimum income guarantee, which has benefited more than 1 million pensioners, and also oppose the winter fuel payment. They certainly would not have brought those benefits to pensioners had they been in power.

Mr. Lansley: Pensioners will not be diverted by the Minister from their experience of what has happened under the Government. When it comes to experience, will the Minister confirm that one of his 28 pilot projects is in Hartlepool? Will he explain why it makes any sense to have a pilot project of listening to older people in Hartlepool while the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is attending Labour party meetings and saying that there is no mileage for the Labour party in pensioners? The consequence of that was a one-third reduction in the Labour vote in Hartlepool last Thursday. That will continue while the Labour party fails to deliver to pensioners.

Mr. Stringer: The pensioners to whom I listened are aware of the damage that the Conservative party has done to pensioners and the damage that it would do if it were ever to return to power. They recognise also that the £6.5 billion that the Government have put into pensioners' pockets would not have reached them had the Conservatives been in power. None of those initiatives would have been taken by the hon. Gentleman's party.


When the Conservative Government were in power, he was more interested in raising charges on eye tests than in making access to the health service free for those tests.

Social Exclusion

Ms Hazel Blears: What plans she has to ensure that initiatives to tackle social exclusion work together to integrate their activity with mainstream programmes. [120438]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): The targets contained in the social exclusion unit's reports on rough sleeping, school exclusion and truancy and teenage pregnancy are included in the relevant Departments' public service agreements. That means that the targets will form an integral part of the mainstream business of each Department. The framework consultation document on the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal proposes that core public services, such as schools, police and health services, should be the Government's main weapon against deprivation.

Ms Blears: I am grateful for that reply, but is my right hon. Friend aware that, in Salford, we have an education action zone, a health action zone, a single regeneration budget programme and the sure start initiative, all of which tackle social exclusion? That can mean that families in crisis are visited by a health visitor, a welfare rights officer, a housing officer and a social worker. One of our ideas is that multi-skilled workers should carry out that range of tasks so that families in difficulty have a single worker who is their advocate and ambassador, helping to improve their lives and ensuring that all the initiatives work for them.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that example. Many local authorities choose different mechanisms to deliver the policies that now exist for them to implement in their communities. We have cited Salford as an example of good practice, but other authorities use different mechanisms more suited to their communities. We are doing our best nationally to join up the policy targets as well as ensuring that the money available from different Departments goes down to local areas in one go. I am sure that that will make a difference.
On regeneration, some communities and local authorities have community focus and leadership. I firmly believe that there must be a buy-in from the community if those programmes are to work. In communities where that is not happening, we are trying, through the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal, to spread good practice, encourage leadership and make progress in all local communities.

Government IT

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: If she will make a statement on the progress with introducing information technology into government. [120440]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): On 31 March, we published "e-government"—a strategic framework for public services in the information age. Departments have been asked to set

out their e-business strategies by October 2000, with the e-envoy reporting to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the contents and progress in December 2000.

Mr. Quinn: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I urge him in developing Government policy on the information age to have due regard to all those in our society who have difficulties and find information technology a challenge? May I also urge him to ensure that we make use of the possibilities of the new computer platforms that will be available in post offices, especially in rural and suburban communities?

Mr. Stringer: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. E-business and e-government are meant to provide an additional service, not to exclude anyone. While there is a demand for face-to-face meetings, the Government are committed to providing such services. The e-service is an additional service.

Mr. Paul Tyler: In the distractions of last Thursday, we were unable to obtain a statement on the implications of the love bug computer virus, which is obviously important in the context of the Government's IT programme. Can we be assured that the work that is being done following on from realising the benefits of Y2K will take account of threats from such bugs? When will a statement be placed in the Library on the implications of that virus for government?

Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. What happened last Thursday with the love bug is being assessed in the Cabinet Office. When that assessment has taken place, it will be possible to make a full statement, except on security matters.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Can the Minister tell us exactly when the love bug hit government technology; whether, as in the United States, the Government received any prior warning; and whether they warned business as a result of any such prior warning?

Mr. Stringer: There was no prior warning. The first time that the Cabinet Office knew about the love bug was on the morning of 4 May. We took immediate action, and because of the defences against viruses already in place in the Cabinet Office, less damage and destruction was done to the systems than otherwise would have been.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. John Bercow: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 May.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Bercow: My constituent Nicole Wanford is raising two young children by herself working for an income of


just over £200 a week. When her employer tried to help her by giving her a bonus of just over £600, the state confiscated £439 in tax and withdrawn benefits. In the light of those facts, does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who thinks that the working families tax credit—this massively expensive scheme—will help to eradicate poverty, or with my hard-working constituent who knows that it has made it impossible for her problems to be solved?

The Prime Minister: I obviously do not know about that particular case, but the working families tax credit is helping 1.25 million low-income families. Many of them to whom I have spoken are benefiting by £15 or £20 a week. What they should really know is that its entirety would be scrapped by an incoming Tory Government.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: May I express sincere congratulations and thanks from the people of Northern Ireland to the Prime Minister, and to the Taoiseach, for the successful conclusion to their endeavours, not just on Thursday and Friday last, but during the many weeks before?
Is the Prime Minister aware that certain aspects of the new accord did not, of necessity, have the prominence that they should have had? First is the issue of the loyalist paramilitaries putting their weapons beyond use. Does the Prime Minister agree that the weaponry and explosives of the loyalist paramilitaries are just as deadly as those of the IRA? Secondly, is he aware that in Northern Ireland today and every day we are subjected to a daily round of shootings, horrible beatings, intimidation and press gangs that affect ordinary men and women in their houses, in their streets and in their estates? Will he use his best endeavours on both those accounts, and renew his energies to bring those matters to a conclusion? We know from the past that the loyalist and republican paramilitaries who are on ceasefire have control of these issues.

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman says. Those beatings are barbaric and have no place in any civilised society. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that loyalist paramilitary weapons must be treated in exactly the same way as republican weapons. They would do equal damage were they to be used, and not put beyond use as they should be.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the continuing peace process in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to him and his party for their constructive attempts to make this process work. Whatever the difficulties, I still believe that it is the best way forward in Northern Ireland. Despite the beatings, let us never forget that hundreds of people used to be killed in outrages every year, and soldiers used to patrol every part of Northern Ireland. We have made enormous progress already, and with good will on all sides we will get this job done.

Mr. William Hague: I support all the remarks of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). From this side of the House, we welcome the statement by the IRA and the renewed hope for full implementation of the Good Friday agreement. The eyes

of the world will now be on paramilitaries, loyalist and republican, to see that they implement that side of the agreement.
Let me turn to a different subject. Today we have heard alarming reports from Dagenham of an end to 70 years of car production. Will the Prime Minister confirm that in the last Parliament the number of people employed in manufacturing rose by 70,000, whereas under his premiership the net loss of manufacturing jobs stands at 206,000—and the figure is rising?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's opportunism knows no bounds. No sooner has he had to conceal his disappointment at the Rover deal than he leaps on Ford. As for manufacturing jobs, what he omitted to tell the House is that in the first two years of the 1990s, under his Government, 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost.

Mr. Hague: To thousands of people working in manufacturing today, that kind of answer is no longer good enough. Slogans from past elections are irrelevant to the 21st century. Let us hear the actual facts—the actual facts from the House of Commons Library, independently respected. The number of employees in manufacturing in Great Britain has fallen by 206,000 since the general election.
As no senior member of the Government has ever worked in a business, why do they not listen to some people who do? Why does the Prime Minister not listen to his friend Lord Haskins, who says that
entrepreneurs are being distracted from running and growing their businesses by the cumulative burden of taxation and…regulation.
Will the Prime Minister now give the House the figure from the British Chambers of Commerce for the cost of extra red tape and regulation under his Government?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps I could quote something to the right hon. Gentleman about regulation.
We passed volumes of new rules and laws interfering in almost every aspect of business and social life.
Source? The shadow Chancellor.
As for Ford, the details will be announced on Friday. I do want to deal with that. We will of course do all we can to protect the jobs that can be protected. Thirty-six thousand people are employed by Ford in the United Kingdom, 9,000 of them at Dagenham. We will be there, ready to help, with money, investment and advice for any who do lose their jobs.
Let us be clear: the problem of manufacturers, particularly those selling into Europe, is the current strength of the pound. The problem is not helped by the right hon. Gentleman's attempts to exploit it. Everyone in manufacturing industry remembers the early 1990s, when 1 million jobs were lost, output fell by 7 per cent. and investment fell by 28 per cent., so no one will take lessons from the Conservatives on manufacturing.

Mr. Hague: The actual figure is £10 billion for red tape and regulation. The weakness of the euro is not the only problem of manufacturing industry; the behaviour of the right hon. Gentleman's Government is an additional problem. Why is what Lord Haskins said not written in


that folder that he is always consulting? There must be something in that folder other than "If pressed, waffle for as long as you can."
Given today's reports, coming on top of so many others of recent weeks, is it not the case that unless the Government stop piling extra taxes and regulations on business, more manufacturing jobs will be lost—to add to the 200 a day that have been lost since the Prime Minister took office—and his Chancellor's pre-election pledge that manufacturing industries will grow again will be exposed as yet another promise that he has totally and shamefully betrayed?

The Prime Minister: I note that, on Ford, the right hon. Gentleman has not a single constructive solution to offer. As for manufacturing jobs, many are also being created. In the past few months, jobs have been created at Vauxhall and IBC Vehicles; 1,300 jobs have been created at Nortel, 1,000 at Honda and 1,000 at Quantax.
Yes, there are jobs that will also be lost, particularly in a period of massive economic and structural change. The difference is that this Government, as we did with Rover, stand ready to help people through that process. If it is all right to quote the shadow Chancellor again, he described yesterday, when the problems of the strong pound were put to him, which, in fact, is worrying manufacturing—[Interruption.] Conservative Members say it is all a weak euro. Let me quote to them from their shadow Chancellor. He said:
We have to get used to the idea that a strong currency is not a bad thing. It is a reflection of a strong economy.
Thank you, shadow Chancellor.

Mr. David Stewart: The Prime Minister will be well aware of the extent of worries about pensioner poverty throughout this country. Will he do his utmost to have a vigorous uptake campaign for the minimum income guarantee and will he look at the group of pensioners who have been thrifty throughout their lives, who have some pension and who have some savings? Will he take on board their needs in the pension review?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we will. Perhaps I should explain that, in this Parliament, we will be spending some £6.5 billion more on pensioner incomes than was forecast by the previous Government. That is, incidentally, £2.5 billion more than the cost of uprating the basic state pension in line with earnings, but what we have done is to try to target as our first priority those who are poorest. One million of the poorest pensioners will be up to £20 a week better off as a result of our changes. Also, the winter allowance, now at £150, is paid tax free to pensioner households and is outside the benefit system, as are the free TV licences for the over-75s, so, again, it helps those in most need, but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We now have to ensure that those who are above benefit levels and below income tax levels who have saved all their lives are given the help that they need.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister concur that, of all the various electoral messages that were sent at the last diet of elections at the end of last week, by far the most telling was the verdict of Romsey? [Interruption.] Given that that

is obviously taken as read, may I say to the Prime Minister that the serious verdict from Romsey was not a party political one? It was a triumph for the politics of hope and the future in our country, as opposed—[Interruption] that is all we need to know: just look at them—as opposed to what the Conservatives endeavoured to achieve, which was the triumph of the politics of fear, division and prejudice. That is the issue.

The Prime Minister: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on her victory in that by-election. Secondly—[Interruption.] Well, Conservative Members are on about us losing our deposit in that by-election. I would have thought it rather worse to have lost one of the Conservative's safest seats in the entire country. If that had happened to us just before the last election, we would have been slightly concerned, but do not worry—carry on being unconcerned.
In relation to the other issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises, it was a sign of the courage of his own campaign locally that people did not respond to what was a quite irresponsible campaign on behalf of the Conservatives. I am pleased that that was decisively rejected by reasonable people.

Mr. Kennedy: I congratulate the Prime Minister on that reply—I could not have put it better myself. However, will he also acknowledge that what came through loud and clear from Romsey, from voters of all political persuasions and of none, was the genuine feeling—I follow the question just asked by my neighbouring Member, the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart)—that pensioners are getting a raw deal from the Administration? [Interruption.] Would the Prime Minister therefore—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Kennedy, speak up.

Mr. Kennedy: Would the Prime Minister acknowledge the legitimate concerns of pensioners in this country who want, in the words of the most recent Labour manifesto, to share increasingly in the increasing prosperity of the nation?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that, there, the consensus must end, although it was a great relationship while it lasted. On the right hon. Gentleman's point on the basic state pension, I remind him—not just to make a political point, but to make another one which I shall come to in a moment—that the 1997 Liberal Democrat manifesto stated:
The basic state pension will remain indexed to prices.
It went on to say:
We will create an additional top-up pension for pensioners with incomes below Income Support level.
That is, of course, the minimum income guarantee. That is precisely what we have done.
We had to decide—as the Liberal Democrats did when they drew up their manifesto—if we are to spend more money, who we help first. The truth is that pensioner incomes in this country are more varied than they were 30 or 40 years ago. If we simply put money on the basic state pension, many pensioners would not necessarily need


that money, but would receive it, whereas some of the poorest pensioners would not receive any help at all. We therefore decided to start with the poorest pensioners first.
The winter allowance—we never even promised to provide it, but we have done so—is paid to everyone. We are now seeing how we can help those other pensioners. However. I make no apology for saying that we started with the poorest first.

Mr. Martin Salter: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the people of Reading not only for their imaginative city centre—which the Minister for Local Government visited last week—but, in common with the people of Romsey, rejecting the Conservative party's right-wing racist claptrap and re-electing their Labour council with a record majority?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to congratulate my hon. Friend and his council. Of course, the almost 900,000 extra jobs in the economy played a part, too.

Mr. John Burnett: Events in west Africa emphasise the importance for Britain of naval power. They also emphasise the importance for Britain of retaining its shipbuilding industry. Appledore, in my constituency, has been asked to tender for two new tank-carrying vessels. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that tenders from overseas companies will be carefully scrutinised for subsidies, and that he and the Government will support British shipyards such as Appledore which have a track record of building high-quality ships on budget, on time, every time?

The Prime Minister: Of course we will do what we can to support the shipbuilding industry. Moreover, we will not only do that within the rules, but will ensure that other countries keep to the rules also. I was delighted to hear that Appledore has just been awarded a second contract for a fisheries patrol vessel. My understanding is that a consequence of that order is that Appledore has been able to rescind all 300 redundancy notices that it had to issue when no orders were in prospect. That is excellent news. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the company, and I wish them well in the future.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to our service personnel who, at this moment, are doing such a vital job in Sierra Leone? Does he agree that that crisis and similar crises in other African countries show the increasing need for co-ordinated, stronger United Nations peacekeeping and intervention forces to deal with such problems?

The Prime Minister: I agree with that last remark. Obviously it is important that British troops are in Sierra Leone at the moment to organise an evacuation and secure conditions to ensure the safety of our citizens. The paratroopers, as ever, are carrying out their mission with great efficiency. The evacuation is continuing. It is likely to take several more days—possibly a week—to ensure that our people in the outlying areas are brought to safety. It is right that I should also take this opportunity to condemn completely the activities of Mr. Sankoh and the Revolutionary United Front. It is important that we do everything that we responsibly can to safeguard

democracy in Sierra Leone. This country has played a very great part in doing that in the past couple of years and we should continue to do so.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: In the United States, police numbers have gone up and crime has gone down. In the United Kingdom, under this Government, police numbers have gone down and crime has gone up. Why do not the Government fund a really effective police force?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Crime has fallen under this Government. What is more, the previous Government, when he used to support cut police numbers for their last three years. Crime was falling at the time, but what most people remember about the previous Conservative Government is that they doubled crime.

Mr. Llew Smith: The UK Safety Group in my constituency, which produces footwear for the military, has just announced the closure of a factory and the loss of 65 jobs. It says that the only way it can maintain and retain defence contracts is by outsourcing its work to Brazil, where workers are paid scandalously low wages. Surely that cannot be right. Will the Prime Minister intervene to look at the defence contracts and help to ensure that those jobs are kept in Blaenau Gwent, which is one of the poorest communities in the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly look into that case, but I have to say once again that it is important that we realise that, particularly in a modern global economy, there will be jobs lost and jobs gained. We should do everything that we can to protect the jobs that we can protect and to help people who lose their job to get another job. We shall do that. I shall look into the particular circumstances of my hon. Friend's constituency case, but it is important that we emphasise to people that there is a limit to what the Government can do. We should do what we can do, but not pretend that we can protect people against every aspect of competition in a global economy, because it would not be right to say that.

Mr. William Hague: This morning, the Conservative members of the London Assembly reconfirmed their manifesto pledge to oppose congestion taxes in the capital. Does the Prime Minister expect the Labour members of the Assembly to stick to their manifesto pledge and join us in opposing congestion taxes?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the Labour members will abide by their election pledge.

Mr. Hague: So will the Prime Minister make it clear to the new mayor of London that there is no point in even trying to introduce congestion charges, since the Labour and Conservative members together will vote against them with a two-thirds majority, and the idea should therefore be abandoned today?

The Prime Minister: Consensus appears to be breaking out on every side this afternoon. I cannot see many advantages in the situation, but one advantage is


that I am not responsible for the new mayor. However, I am responsible for the Labour members and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that they will abide by their manifesto. I am sorry if my answer took him by surprise.

Mr. Hague: Nothing that the Prime Minister says takes us by surprise any more. The Prime Minister is directly responsible for the new mayor, because the right hon. Gentleman's behaviour got him elected. The Prime Minister is also responsible for the Labour candidates who pledged no congestion taxes. Now that he is on our side on congestion taxes and has said that he is against them and expects the Labour members to stick to their pledge, will he join us in the House of Commons tonight in voting to save the rest of the country from this crackpot scheme of the Deputy Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: No, we will not. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the first time that congestion charges were mentioned as a part of Government policy was under his Government, shortly before the general election. As for the Labour members of the Assembly—I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has had to ask me this three times to get the same answer—they will abide by their manifesto.

Mr. Chris Pond: Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning, 16 social service care managers in Kent received redundancy notices as a result of the fact that, one month after setting its budget, Conservative-controlled Kent county council is already £10 million overspent?
Despite the fact that the Government have totally reimbursed the cost of asylum seekers to Kent, the council continues to take an additional £3 from council tax payers. Will my right hon. Friend arrange as soon as possible to meet the Tory leaders on Kent county council to insist that that money is returned and to arrange a visit for prudence to county hall in Maidstone with the purpose of introducing some financial management to the Tories that run the council?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether I can promise absolutely to meet the Tory leaders in Kent, but I hope that people up and down the country realise what happens when the Tories are in charge of basic public services. When we came to office we found that in the health service, they had cut the number of nurses and the number of hospital beds. The hospital building programme had stalled and there was underinvestment in the national health service. What is happening in social services in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere shows why it is important that we never let the Tories back again.

Mr. Eric Forth: This country now tops the European league table for asylum seekers. Does the Prime Minister still believe that three detention centres will be sufficient, or should there be a fourth?

The Prime Minister: I suppose that at least the right hon. Gentleman had the courage the raise that issue, which is more than can be said for the Leader of the Opposition. In relation to asylum, of course the key factor is that the measures that were introduced in April will

make a difference. They include the withdrawal of cash benefits, penalties for those bringing in illegal immigrants, and, as we said a long time ago—it was prefigured back in the July 1998 White Paper—we will increase the number of detention centres. However, detention centres are for people whose applications have been turned down. We will not follow the advice of the Conservative party and lock up every single applicant. That would be hugely expensive and it would certainly be unlawful.

Mr. Richard Burden: One day, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a question about something other than Rover, but today is not the day. Will he join me in congratulating John Towers and his team on proving all the critics wrong and acquiring Rover Cars for the Phoenix consortium? Does he agree that the great thing about the Phoenix bid is that it has been a real co-operative effort involving the trade unions, who have been magnificent, and the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from day one? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the real tribute has to go to the workers at Longbridge and their families, who have had to put up with the most appalling uncertainty for too long? They have come through that and can now get on with what they do best—making quality cars that people want to buy.

The Prime Minister: They do make quality cars. As my hon. Friend said, it has been a co-operative effort and we pay tribute to Mr. Towers and to the trade unions. I certainly pay tribute also to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for the immense amount of work that he did. The work force have earned their colours here and they have done quite magnificently. It is as a result of their dedication and the faith in them that Mr. Towers was able to put together his bid. We wish it well and we stand ready to help in whatever way we can. For those people who will lose their jobs—who are now, thankfully, far fewer in number—we stand ready to help with money, investment and advice on getting a new job.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As there is still widespread public concern about the high level of crime and the low rate of detection, following his exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), does the Prime Minister agree that another lesson of Romsey is that populist, simplistic and inappropriate solutions to that issue were clearly rejected by the electorate? If he agrees, will he and his Government please reconsider their populist and ill-considered proposal to remove from many innocent people the right to choose trial by jury, which he opposed at the general election? Will he instead take measures that defend the liberties of the innocent and secure the prevention of crime and its better detection, which that does not do at all?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the right to trial by jury. This is a change that was recommended by a royal commission. It is supported by the Lord Chief Justice. It is unquestionably right. In Scotland, for example, such a


right in those terms has never existed, and no one has ever complained that the criminal justice system in Scotland is flawed as a result.
The reform is not just right in its own terms. It will speed up the system of justice and save money that can then be put into police numbers that do precisely what the hon. Gentleman wants, which is to prevent crime.

However, I am afraid that we are not able to spend more money on police and push the numbers back up again, after years of decline in police numbers, if we omit to take the measures necessary to do it. As I have said many times to Liberal Democrat Members, there is no point in carrying on asking us to spend more and more money on all sorts of different projects without any idea of how they should be paid for.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Fallon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you to a debate that took place in Westminster Hall yesterday, during which the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) referred in detail to a planning application in my constituency? He concluded by inviting the Minister to intervene in that planning application in my constituency. He did that without consulting or even informing me. I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that that is a gross parliamentary discourtesy, and I invite you now to so rule.

Madam Speaker: It is usual that, when Members refer to issues relating to another Member's constituency, in the House, in Committee or in the parallel Chamber, it is a common courtesy for that Member to let the hon. Member representing the constituency know that he will be doing so. It is a good practice that has operated in the House for some time, and I hope that it will continue to be maintained.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: With the benefit of hindsight, Madam Speaker, and following your guidance, I clearly should have informed the hon. Gentleman, and I apologise to him and to the House. I make no apology for raising the issue, and if the hon. Gentleman is serious about protecting the countryside, perhaps he will make common cause with me on this issue.

Madam Speaker: I accept the apology that the hon. Member made in the first part of his comments.

Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On a related but separate issue, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) did not inform me of a recent visit to my constituency. I read about it in the Manchester Evening News. He had been in a car parked just a few hundred yards from my home in Altrincham. Is that not another instance of normal parliamentary courtesies being forgotten?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is in a most unfortunate position. I often get letters from him in which he raises similar points of order. He must have a most attractive constituency. But of course, it is a common practice that Members—certainly Ministers, who have a staff—should notify the Member concerned when a visit is being made. When I come, I shall let the hon. Gentleman know, because he obviously has an interesting and attractive constituency.

Orders of the Day — Transport Bill

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

New Clause 28

USE OF RECEIPTS FROM CHARGING SCHEMES

'Moneys collected under a charging scheme shall be used solely and exclusively for the purpose of improving roads and public transport for the benefit of those who are subject to the charge.'.—[Mr. Syms.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Robert Syms: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
First, I wish to declare an interest. Hon. Members should be aware of it from the Register of Members' Interests. I am a director of a family business with interests in road haulage and building and which owns property that may be affected by workplace parking. So hon. Members should see any comments that I make on congestion charging or workplace parking within the context of my interest.
In general, Conservative Members are opposed to congestion charging. We believe that it is a tax, and should be seen within the context of a Government who take £36 billion in road taxes and put only just over £5 billion back into transport spending.
Rather than spending the money raised from taxation, the Government's solution to transport problems is to seek further ways to tax the motorist and interfere in people's lives so that they may gain a little more money for public transport schemes. The millions of motorists in the UK pay substantial sums for using their vehicles. People often use their cars for their business or their family—the necessities of life—and will be upset that the Government's desire is that they should pay substantially more for the privilege.
The Bill sets out a regime under which local authorities or the Greater London mayor may set up schemes for congestion charging. That is bad news, but those of last Thursday's elections that returned Conservative councillors were good news for people against congestion charging, because Conservative councils will oppose it.
Given the exchanges during Prime Minister's questions a few moments ago, it is interesting that the elected mayor of London—the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—is committed to charging, but that nine Conservative members were elected to the Greater London authority. Will the Minister confirm that, as the Prime Minister said, Labour members of the authority will stand by their manifesto and oppose congestion charging? The regime for Greater London is such that, if two thirds of the authority oppose the mayor, they will carry the day. The arithmetic of nine Conservative and nine Labour members means that congestion charging for central London can be blocked. It would be useful if the Minister would confirm that that is so.
The public and the electors of London would be interested to have confirmed the attitude of the Labour party and its members of the GLA. Big money is involved, and the matter will have a major effect on the new authority and the mayor.

Mr. John Bercow: In speaking out against congestion charging, does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative opposition on the GLA is reinforced by the election in the west central area of Angie Bray, which we warmly celebrate? She can be relied on to be a continuing and articulate opponent of the mayor of London on that and other matters.

Mr. Syms: I am sure that Angie Bray will be an excellent member, and that all nine Conservatives will make a major contribution to the new authority. It would be good to have some clarification of where the Labour party stands on whether it is worth pursuing some of the schemes involved. Motorists pay £36 billion in road taxes—nearly £1 in every £7 collected in taxation. Yet the Government's policy is to collect more tax from the long-suffering motorist.
We should have preferred to strike schemes out completely, but we have tabled the new clause because it is not always possible on Report to table the amendments that one would want. We aim to ensure that if, in the face of Conservative opposition, a local authority unfortunate enough to have a Liberal or Labour majority or a coalition, wants to proceed with a scheme, the money collected must be spent on improving the area subject to charge. It is a belt-and-braces proposal; the Bill reflects the Government's intention that money should be spent within the area, but we wish to re-emphasise that point to protect those who pay what may be large amounts.
The Government set up ROCOL—the review of charging options for London—because of the provisions in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. The ROCOL study considered various options and charges that ranged from £2.50 to £10 a day for driving in central London. The most likely figure seemed to be £5 a day according to the study. Such charges could affect 200,000 cars and 50,000 commercial vehicles and could result in traffic being diverted, as most charging schemes do—up to 50,000 vehicles could be diverted out of the central area.
The ROCOL study suggested that one would need 150 places where vehicles could be stopped and inspected and about 400 enforcement staff. My understanding of the study—the Minister may have a different view—was that such charging would have a marginal benefit in terms of traffic congestion. However, we already have capacity problems on the underground and on buses, and charging would lead to even more overcrowding even if only a few more people decided to travel in that way.
If the charge were £5 a day, the yield would be between £260 million and £320 million in central London. No doubt the exchanges during Prime Minister's questions could mean big money. If that sort of money could be taken off people who have to come into central London, as well as a lower figure in other city centres throughout the United Kingdom, motorists would be paying substantial sums. The ROCOL study suggested that operating costs might be £50 million a year.
Such charging schemes would have a major effect on those who have to drive into our city centres. They would also affect poorer drivers, not merely the wealthy.

In Committee, we discussed the fact that those who drive Rolls-Royces and Aston Martins may not mind paying £5 a day to drive around central London. Indeed, the charge might be to their benefit. However, many people are struggling—even in London, many people suffer deprivation and poverty. Those people may also wish to come into central London, but would find it difficult to pay that sort of charge regularly. The charge would be a regressive tax and the Opposition oppose it.
New clause 28 sets out to ensure that, if the measure were implemented in the teeth of opposition, the moneys would be used to benefit those who are subject to the charge. The genesis of the argument on the issue is that when charging was first proposed for London, in the Greater London Authority Bill, the Opposition moved an amendment to ensure that there would be a link between the charge and where the money was spent. A 10-year guarantee was written into the 1999 Act to ensure that the income generated from congestion charging would be used to the benefit of transport in the area concerned.
New clause 28 does not propose a definite period. It would be unfair to institute a new system, particularly given the £36 billion raised in road taxes, to raise money for an area, only to abandon that system and use the money for other things—as another means of taxation.
The Opposition are concerned because, even though there has been talk of hypothecation, it has been suggested only for a limited period. The cost of setting up and implementing charging schemes will not be insubstantial. Although the income from the schemes would initially cover the costs, in the long term we are concerned that the money should be spent to benefit the people who pay the charge.
There are concerns about congestion charging in general. Who should be exempt? During our many hours of happy deliberations in Committee about who should be exempt, we received representations from all sorts of organisations. Trade organisations, such as the Association of International Courier and Express Services, raised concerns, as did organisations that deliver parcels and always have to be nipping in and out of city centres. We were informed about some exemptions for emergency vehicles, but the Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club and so on expressed concerns about whether those exemptions affected them.
3.45 pm
There are major problems with congestion charging. We oppose it in principle because we believe that a Government who tax motorists at the rate that they do should not be looking for another means of taxing drivers, of controlling drivers and of discriminating against drivers—because, for most people, the car is not a luxury but a necessity.
Perhaps central London might be the one example where there are some public transport alternatives to car use, but those of us who represent shire counties know that most people do not have an alternative. If my local authority determines that it wishes to use the legislation to introduce congestion charging, it could have dire consequences for people living out in rural Dorset who may wish to visit Poole. The charge will have a deadly


effect on rural dwellers, who do not get many of the benefits of those who live in towns, and who need a car to get to school or to the health centre, and to go shopping.

Mr. Peter Snape: Does the hon. Gentleman think that his authority should have the right to decide for itself whether to apply that charge?

Mr. Syms: It is probably better that the legislation is framed to allow the local authority to decide for itself, because it gives the Conservatives an opportunity to capture the authority and block it, and it provides a valuable campaigning mechanism for the Conservative party. I admit that, from a political point of view, congestion charging has many benefits for the Conservative party. I am sure that, if such charging is implemented and pursued by many authorities, including Labour authorities—and those controlled by the Liberal Democrats, who have shown a degree of enthusiasm for the policy that would worry any right-thinking person—we in the Conservative party will be the bastion of freedom and will defend people's ability to go about their ordinary life, dealing with the things that they need to deal with without undue state interference and excessive taxation.
New clause 28 would be an improvement on the Bill. I consider that congestion charging is a socialist measure, if I may use that word. When it is implemented throughout the United Kingdom, it will distribute money from people who need to use their vehicle to governmental organisations such as local authorities, who, in my opinion, do not spend money as well as the ordinary British public do.
I have always had a great feeling that money is better spent when it is in the pockets of hard-working people and their families. It is a form of regressive taxation to transfer money in such a way. I regret that the charge will penalise those who are less able to afford it, who I think will see in the Conservative party a one-nation party, standing up for their interests—standing up for people's right to go about their day-to-day business without excessive interference by the state, and without the overlay of further taxation.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am not absolutely sure what the hon. Gentleman means. Is he saying that if a local authority already has on its books the right to carry out congestion charging and that money is being directly diverted to a transport system that benefits the people of that community, an incoming local authority that was Conservative controlled would automatically abrogate those powers and insist on the dismantling of the transport system?

Mr. Syms: For local elections, the local manifesto will be produced by the people in each political party who know their local area and its priorities. My party opposes congestion charging in principle, but of course we are a diverse and large party, and we are growing larger by the day. Certainly, since Thursday, there are many more

Conservatives up and down the land. The number of Conservative councillors has doubled since the present Government came to office.

Mrs. Dunwoody: So?

Mr. Syms: It is basically for the local councillors to determine what they wish to do, given their priorities.

Mr. Tony Clarke: The hon. Gentleman referred to one-nation Conservatism and almost gave the pledge that all Conservative councils would not introduce congestion charging. For clarity, will he answer the question that he has already been asked? Does he foresee circumstances in which Conservative councils may introduce congestion charging or not use that money for the purposes that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) described?

Mr. Syms: Of course Conservative councils will have to deal with the situation as they find it. Legislation and local transport plans are drawn up in such a way that, if there is a change of political control, there can be a change of political direction. Any incoming authority will have to judge, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) suggested, whether the kerfuffle and fuss of dismantling a scheme will be worse than keeping it going for a while, particularly if set-up costs are taken into account. However, they are matters of detail that responsible Conservative councillors will consider after they have won control of local authorities.
The House is dealing with the Bill and with principles, and the Conservative party is clearly opposed to the proposal.

Mr. Bercow: We have got principles.

Mr. Syms: Conservative Members have principles; that may appear shocking.
The new clause would ensure that, when charging schemes are introduced, the benefits of them actually go to the areas for which they are intended. We had much debate in Committee about whether moneys could be used in other areas or those next door, and all the surveys that I have seen suggest that there is substantial opposition to charging. The only silver lining for the Government is that, when people are asked whether they would support a scheme if the money were used for transport schemes, the response is occasionally more positive.
Our new clause is designed to be helpful. If the Government think that charging is the way forward, they will accept it. That might be a palliative for Conservative Members, who would otherwise consider the proposal to be an offensive socialist measure. I take great pleasure in moving the new clause.

Mr. Snape: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) chose to move the new clause. In our protracted Committee stage, he was always the voice of sweet reason among Conservative Members. He normally avoided controversy as much as he could. I realise that such conduct would not automatically be approved by some of the Conservative Members sitting behind him, so he has had to stiffen up his act for Report.
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman described congestion charging as a socialist measure—Labour Members are not often accused of introducing them these days. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reminded the House today, such a scheme first saw the light of day in a Conservative party document, so it is difficult to describe it in that way. I am sad that the hon. Gentleman had to go through convolutions as he moved the new clause; he is much better leaving the nasty stuff to the hon. Member for North Essex, who has somewhat belatedly joined us. It was much easier, in Committee, to knock the hon. Member for North Essex around a bit, but, if the hon. Member for Poole has decided to adopt the mantle of North Essex, he can expect to be knocked around a bit himself in this debate.
I do not know how many allies the Conservative party will plead it has for the new clause. The hon. Member for Poole trotted out all the sad old statistics about how much money motorists and road users pay and how little, comparatively speaking, they receive in return. Figures can be bandied around day and night, but they always fail to include to any great extent the costs to the police, the courts and hospitals and the costs of congestion and pollution that road users—most of us fall into that category—create. Motoring organisations all too often use such figures to argue against proposals such as the one that emanated from the Conservative party.
In the hon. Gentleman's private moments—if he is ever allowed any—he will have to concede that we cannot proceed as we are. The fact that more and more people understandably desire to acquire and drive motor cars—most Members are motorists—means that, sooner or later, the point of total gridlock will be reached in many towns and cities even if it has not been reached occasionally already.
Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Poole, are always short on solutions to the problems of congestion. They no longer propose to return to the great car economy so beloved of Lady Thatcher, which involved applying the predict-and-provide theory to road space, because they know full well that, in most parts of the country, building new roads is enormously unpopular.
That is especially true of—let me describe them as non-controversially as possible—the more affluent Conservative parts of the country. People living in those areas often demand the freedom, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, to drive their car wherever they like. However, proposals to widen motorways, build new trunk roads or make life easier for motorists are normally greeted with an enormous outcry and the best legal brains are immediately engaged to frustrate any local authority—or even the Government—wishing to bring forward such a proposal. The hon. Gentleman's speech is therefore long on problems and short on solutions.
Amazingly enough, the hon. Gentleman does not, these days, speak for business. The Conservative party always used to claim that it was the voice of business, but, in doing so, it draped itself in a false cloak. Now, however, even business acknowledges that something has to be done about congestion. Indeed, to a limited extent, the voice of business, the Confederation of British Industry—whose comments I shall come to in a moment—has come round to the view that some form of congestion charging is essential in many of our towns and cities if total gridlock is to he avoided.
I am not saying that we should rush into anything overnight and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will underline that in his reply. There must be adequate consultation. However, is the hon. Member for Poole seriously suggesting that we should deny local authorities the right to make up their own mind on the implementation of such schemes? That appeared to be what he was saying. He went on to claim that there was popular opposition to those schemes, which was likely to boost the Conservative party. I am surprised that he, of all people, should use that populist argument. I accept that times are bad for the Tory party and that any threadbare, right-wing policy is going to be brought out of the locker, dusted down and given a run out.

Mr. James Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Snape: I shall give way in a moment, if he will allow me to finish this thought.
I can well understand the desire of the hon. Member for Poole to pose as the motorists' friend. However, most thinking motorists know full well that we cannot go on as we are. Many of them, even dedicated Conservative voters, must have misgivings about the empty-headed nature of much of the opposition from Conservative Members. This strikes me as an appropriate time to give way to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is only half-headed, for giving way. His point about the Conservative party having a difficult time is silly. Does he think that the Conservatives winning 600 council seats from the Labour party last Thursday is an indication of bad times for my party? Does he agree that that result is, in part, a consequence of his party hammering the motorist in the past two or three years?

Mr. Snape: If I go too far down that road, I am sure that you will call me to order, Madam Speaker.
The Conservative party reminds me of a boxer who has managed to climb off the canvas and is now on his knees. In those circumstances, any referee would stop the contest. However, if the hon. Gentleman feels that the Tory party is up and running, even though many commentators, like me, believe that it is on its knees, then good luck to him. I am not averse to a bit of good cheer from Tory Members from time to time. It has been pretty hard work sitting on these Benches looking at their miserable faces for as many years as I have done, and anything that cheers them up is to be welcomed.
However, I fear that the Conservatives' joy may well be short lived, because of their mindless opposition to the Government proposal. Talking of mindless opposition, I see that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) is about to intervene.

4 pm

Mr. Peter Atkinson: As one of the mindless Opposition, perhaps I may point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in the rural constituency that I represent, which does not have public transport to any extent—it does not have any buses—the Government's taxes on fuel have hit families, particularly those on below and average earnings, extremely hard. The Government are proposing


to make the lives of those people even more difficult and costly, because when they drive into a town, they will have to pay a tax to do so. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said that the proposal is a regressive tax; it will hurt people who can least afford it.

Mr. Snape: Those people will have to do no such thing. The proposals give local authorities the right—presumably after consultation, as I said to my hon. Friend the Minister—to introduce such schemes. Local authorities are not in the business of committing political suicide. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's local authority took advantage of the rural bus scheme introduced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr. Atkinson: indicated assent.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman nods, so I am sure that the more concerned members of his electorate will be aware that, under the Conservatives, there were no buses at all but, under a Labour Government, there is a subsidy that would help bus companies to run in his area. I repeat that Conservative Members should stop falling for their own party's propaganda. We are not saying that in every town and city there will be a fence, a barrier through which it will be impossible to drive a car without paying an enormous sum. The Bill is about giving local authorities the right to decide for themselves. That appears eminently democratic.

Mr. Ivan Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent article on transport in the local paper of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—it is a pity that he is not present—in which it is said of him:
He knows there is a problem with gridlock. He knows people must be encouraged to sometimes choose an alternative to the car…?
Is that not what some of the Bill is aiming to achieve?

Mr. Snape: Alas, if only such a sensible fellow had ever participated in our deliberations in Committee or the House. I have a copy of the article. The photograph in it is pretty poor, but it looks like the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). The caption underneath it reads, "suitable traffic on suitable roads". I am sure that, in his heart of hearts, like the hon. Member for Poole, the hon. Gentleman, as principal Opposition spokesperson on transport, agrees that there is much common sense in the Bill and wishes that he did not have to behave in such a daft way in opposing everything that the Government propose, and denouncing it, as did the hon. Member for Poole, as a wicked example of socialism penalising those least able to pay congestion charges.
Enough of the Conservative party; let it enjoy Thursday's minor triumph. I want to put a couple of points to my hon. Friend the Minister.
Before motorists and others are asked to pay congestion charges, they will need some reassurance on how any money raised will be spent. I look forward to my hon. Friend assuring the House that he will indicate to local authorities—I will not say direct because we do not like

directing local authorities; we believe in democracy in local government—that revenues raised must be spent directly on transport. I hope that he will again say to local authorities that, before introducing such schemes—I repeat that they have a right to do so—they should ensure that proper public transport is available as an alternative in their areas.
I break off to apologise to the House. I should have declared an interest when I got to my feet as the chairman of a bus company that is part of the National Express group. I apologise to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House for forgetting to do so. I declared the interest in yesterday's debate, but I understand that one must do so daily. Before any Conservative Member points out any of my failings, I apologise.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Snape: I knew that I was letting myself in for something; I give way.

Mr. Howarth: I say to the hon. Gentleman, your neighbour, Madam Speaker, that we are all aware of the important post that he holds and the interest that he carries. We feel that the House is much better informed as a result of his outside interest. He does not need to declare his interest—Opposition Members are aware of it throughout our debates.

Mr. Snape: I am delighted that even a normally combative soul such as the hon. Gentleman recognises expertise when he listens to it.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Snape: Just a moment; one hon. Member at a time.
I only wish that some of the common sense displayed by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) would permeate the Conservative Front-Bench team.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am a little concerned about my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who seems to be going soft in his middle age. I am delighted to be reminded that the hon. Gentleman—who has always reminded me of no one more than Detective Inspector Jack Frost—is a successful capitalist. Moreover, his expertise can be invaluable in our deliberations. Will he tell us by how much over the years, in the fulfilment of his important duties, he has managed thereby to enrich himself?

Mr. Snape: Not only would that be the cause of considerable gossip, not least among some of my hon. Friends, but it would be outwith the rules of the House. Any declaration that it is necessary for me to make, I have made in the Register of Members' Interests. I urge that the hon. Gentleman, whose ever-fertile mind all of us on both sides of the House respect, turns up that entry and works it all out for himself.
We should introduce the proposed scheme, after full consultation. In its parliamentary brief on congestion


charging, which I assume was sent to hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Confederation of British Industry stated that
it is essential that the revenue raised is ring fenced for transport improvements and that investment in viable transport alternatives for road users takes place before any local charges are introduced. Subject to this, we believe that congestion charging has the potential to secure benefits for transport users.
Nothing could better illustrate the gulf between the Conservative party and reality than the fact that the CBI sees the sense of the proposals that the House is discussing. Even the CBI has written off the Conservative party for the purposes of sensible opposition. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can give the reassurances that I requested.
As a last duty, Madam Speaker, I apologise for leaving the House for a few moments after I have spoken. I intend to return as quickly as I can.

Mr. Don Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). So often over the past five months, he and I have done battle, disagreeing time after time about issue after issue, and I fear that I must do so yet again today.
The hon. Gentleman described the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) as long on problems and short on solutions. Judging by the speech from the hon. Member for Poole, the sad truth is that he is short on the problems. He does not begin to understand the nature of the problem that the Bill is intended to tackle. His total opposition to measures such as congestion charging and his desire to be the friend of the motorist through thick and thin show his total failure to understand the problem that motorists face.
To support the new clause is not to be anti-motorist or anti-car. I enjoy driving my car, but when I drive it I do not like sitting in traffic jams for hours on end. We must find ways of reducing car use so that when people do need to use their cars, they can get about more easily on our road network.
The problem is enormous. According to the Confederation of British Industry, which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East quoted, the cost of congestion on our roads to business and commerce is £20 billion a year. The Royal Automobile Club estimates that the cost of congestion on our roads to motorists is a staggering £20 billion. In terms of costs to business and commerce and to individual motorists, congestion is a huge problem.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman prays in aid the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce. Does he therefore agree with those organisations in their wholehearted opposition to workplace parking charging?

Mr. Foster: So far, I have not mentioned the British Chambers of Commerce. We are currently discussing road-user charging. The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee that considered the Bill. He therefore knows that there is a significant difference between road-user or congestion charging and workplace charging. We shall debate workplace charging later, when I shall make similar points. Both congestion charging and workplace charging are worth considering. Decisions can best be made locally, by councillors.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again so soon. I am ready to overlook

his condescending manner in pointing out that we are currently discussing congestion charging, and in making a few nice comments about serving on the Committee that considered the Bill. If he cares to read the new clause, he will discover that it covers both congestion charging and charges for workplace parking. I regret that he got to his feet without even reading it.

Mr. Foster: I am grateful for that clarification, which makes the new clause even more incompetent, as I shall show shortly.

Mr. Bercow: I do not wish to break the sequence of the hon. Gentleman's argument—in so far as he can establish one. However, does he understand that the premise on which he began his argument is both woolly and false? He bases his argument on the belief that there is widespread frivolous—and therefore unnecessary—use of the motor car, yet the overwhelming majority of people use their cars because they need to do so, not out of hedonistic self-indulgence, with which the Liberal Democrats want to do away.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman again demonstrates the lack of Conservative party thinking. Of course, in many circumstances people use their motor cars because there is no adequate alternative. However, those motorists currently face the considerable problem of congestion on our roads. We must find ways of easing that. The best method is to introduce more attractive alternatives that work at the right time, in the right place and at an affordable price.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that it is woolly to say that the current cost of congestion is £20 billion to industry and £23 billion to motorists. According to the British Medical Association, pollution from that congestion causes approximately 24,000 deaths a year. Surveys show that, in London, a motorist spends one fifth of his or her time in the motor car stationary. That is a complete waste of a motorist's time.
In Victorian times, when people travelled by horse and cart, average speed was 11 mph. Today, when people travel in motor cars, the average speed in London is an amazing 11 mph. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is surprised at that, but those are the statistics. The average speed of a motorist in London is the same 11 mph as in Victorian times, when travel was by horse and cart. Millions of people suffer from asthma that is caused by the air pollution that results from congestion on our roads. We must tackle that significant problem.
Liberal Democrat Members believe that road-user charging and other measures, including the possibility of workplace charging, can help to provide solutions. However, there are provisos, which we made clear in Committee. They are now supported by the Deputy Prime Minister and, I believe, the Government. We should not introduce such measures unless significantly improved public transport alternatives exist for those who would otherwise suffer from the imposition of the charges that we are discussing. I am delighted that the Government have said that they will not accept, approve and authorise a road-user charging scheme, nor a workplace charging scheme, unless those commitments have been met. As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East said, that applies until it can be demonstrated that there has been widespread consultation.
4.15 pm
We are pleased that the Government have acknowledged that the majority of the revenues that will come from the charges and levies will be used to improve public transport. However, the hon. Member for Poole is suggesting that all the money for all time must be devoted to that purpose. He removes immediately the possibility of something that he supported in Committee. At that stage, he supported the idea that some of the money from charging should be used, for example, to pay for the costs of roadside emission testing. That was one of the concessions made during the Bill's consideration in Committee. There may be other measures that would be of benefit to the wider environment that could come from expenditure of some of the moneys.
I suggested earlier—

Mr. Bercow: Will hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I shall not give way now. I want to make another point, which I would like the hon. Gentleman to intervene on. I am sure that he will, because he is very good at doing so.
Even if I supported the broad thrust of the Conservative Opposition's arguments against the charges and levies, I would have considerable difficulty in supporting the new clause. It reads:
Moneys collected under a licensing scheme shall be solely and exclusively for the purpose of improving roads and public transport for the benefit of those who are subject to the charge.
I have some difficulty in understanding exactly how that will work. If I am driving my car in a charging area, I am subject to the charge. The money so raised will be used to improve public transport for me to use. However, the minute that I use that public transport, I am not subject to the charge. Therefore, public transport is not for my benefit. It appears that money will be raised that cannot be used by those who are persuaded to get out of their cars and to use public transport.
We will almost have a strange new form of apartheid. I can imagine that at bus stations throughout the land there will be two different bus shelters. There will be buses for those who have always used them and buses for those who used to use their car.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has pointed out that the new clause covers both workplace charging and road-user charging because it is incompetent in both regards. However, the hon. Member for Buckingham was extremely keen to intervene a short while ago and I said that I would be happy to give him that opportunity. When he intervenes, he might like to explain his understanding of the new clause.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The purpose of congestion charging and workplace charging is to get people off the roads and on to buses. The hon. Gentleman is saying that people in buses will not be paying workplace charges or congestion charges. That is the precise purpose of the tax. If it is not that, what is it?

Mr. Foster: Only a few minutes ago the hon. Gentleman was proud of himself for picking me up for not having fully read and understood the new clause.

He is now demonstrating a far greater lack of understanding of the clause than even I, in my humble way, have achieved.
It is my party's view that road-user charging and workplace charging levies may have a part to play in helping to reduce the problems that are created by congestion on our roads. We believe that decisions must be made at local level by local councils and that no scheme should be introduced unless there has been widescale consultation. Nor should such schemes be introduced unless and until there has been significant improvement in alternative public transport opportunities for the people in the area concerned.
The new clause is defective in its use of language, but my final point is that it would create another problem. People often travel from one local authority area to another. The second authority may introduce the charging scheme, but, nevertheless, those travelling from outside will still need to benefit from improved public transport. In Committee, the Minister accepted that it will be possible for a local authority to pass the money that it raises from charging regimes to a neighbouring local authority to help it to improve its public transport if doing so can be shown to produce the benefit of reducing congestion overall. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that that is still the Government's intention. We shall not support the new clause, but we shall support the Government in their intention to introduce those opportunities for local councils.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—a fellow member of the Standing Committee—in discussing road congestion and congestion charging. To begin on common ground, I suggest that we are all familiar with that issue and that we are anxious to address it not only because it is of concern to us as Members of Parliament—we find it difficult enough to make our way to the House if we travel by car—but because it causes difficulties for our constituents. Our constituents are anxious that we should deal with congestion, and we are anxious to address it.
The hon. Gentleman is clearly right to say that industry and commerce have drawn attention to the enormous cost that congestion imposes on them. When one is stuck in a traffic jam and those who are on the other side of the road are equally stuck, it is interesting to speculate on the cost to industry and commerce. It is an astronomical sum and it is therefore the duty of Parliament to try to do something about congestion. It is frustrating to be stuck in traffic, which causes bad temper, accidents and so on.

Mr. Bercow: I am sure that my hon. Friend enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) almost as much as I did, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Gentleman was not supported in the Chamber by a single other Liberal Democrat Member. Does my hon. Friend agree that it was especially unfortunate that in his exposition the hon. Gentleman did not mention the dramatic increase in vehicle excise duty in the past three years? His enthusiasm for workplace and congestion charging remains undiminished despite the dramatic new imposts on vehicle users.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to that clear omission by the Liberal Democrats. I am sure that they were not anxious to say in their


campaign in south-west Hampshire that they would impose further charges on motorists. We in the Conservative party recognise that our constituents are exercised about the burdens being imposed on motorists. They feel discriminated against, not only because of the charges that my hon. Friend mentions but because of the tax regime, especially as it applies to those who require a motor car or a van for their job. Travelling by bus or train is simply not realistic for company sales reps or those who work for the utilities. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said at Prime Minister's questions today, the Government have imposed further regulation on motorists in many ways.

Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: Of course; I always give way to a representative of the bus industry.

Mr. Snape: I am not here in that capacity, but never mind; I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way anyway. Does he accept that it is our dependence—some would say over-dependence—on the motor car that has enabled many of us to live quite a long way from where we work, which leads to more and more people driving long distances to work every day? If he acknowledges that, does he also accept that the more people drive to work, the more congestion is caused in city centres because that is where most of them are heading? If he is against the Government's proposals, could he come up with any ideas that would enable people to continue commuting by car for ever and ever amen?

Mr. Howarth: I am pleased to say that the hon. Gentleman is a friend of mine. As a west midlands Member, he should be careful about being too critical of the use of the motor car, because he comes from and represents a part of the world—as you do, Madam Speaker—where the motor car is an extremely important component of the local economy. I am a former west midlands Member, and companies in my former constituency were suppliers to the motor industry. We should be careful before we penalise that industry too severely.
The hon. Gentleman invites me to say how I think the matter could be resolved. I know that he has to leave, but if he has a little patience and can stay with us a bit longer I shall try to answer his question.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) intervened, I was about to mention him because he has referred to people's need to use the motor car. It is not the frivolous use of the car that is responsible for congestion on our roads. The motor car clearly confers a flexibility that public transport does not provide. That maxim applies right across transport. When British Midland put on a couple of flights a day between Heathrow and Birmingham, very few people used the service. If there were six flights a day more people would use the service because it would provide flexibility. The flexibility of the motor car is very important.
The motor car also provides an element of safety, which is why so many mums and dads drive their children to school. They do not walk or cycle. A great number go by car because parents are concerned about the safety of their

children. Those are not frivolous uses of the motor car. They may be undesirable, but they are not frivolous, and it is not for us to tell people that they should not use their motor car if they believe that that is the safest way to convey their children to school and they derive reassurance from that.
Furthermore, I cannot be the only Member who believes that the motor car serves as a mobile office. Twenty years ago we did not have mobile telephones. Before the advent of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), we did not have pagers either. We now have pagers and mobile telephones, and there is no doubt that they enable us to do a certain amount of work while travelling. If we are stuck in a traffic jam, there is a silver lining to the cloud in that we can use the mobile phone and do things that we would not be able to do in a Committee meeting in the House.
My former hon. Friend the mayoral candidate, Mr. Steve Norris, once explained the advantages of the motor car. We can listen to the stereo, the news is available and we can have the use of the office. It is unquestionably a fact of life that the motor car provides us all with a mobile office. Another reason why people are prepared to put up with the discomfort of congestion is that they can do something else in the meantime. They are not prepared to trade that flexibility and the advantage of having the motor car for public transport services that may be less reliable, less flexible and not give them the same travelling environment that the motor car does.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend rightly points out that nowadays the car can be used as a mobile office. Does he agree that, although rail travel has many advantages, one of the besetting sins of modern rail travel is that, while trying to work on the train, one is often obliged to submit oneself to conversations being conducted by others on mobile telephones at a very loud volume—conversations in which one is not in any way interested, but which are very distracting?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The situation that he describes will be familiar not just to Members of Parliament but to the public, and is a cause of great concern.
I promised the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that I would answer his question. He asked what was the solution. The new clause is helpful, but I think that ultimately the solution will lie in the marketplace. The market will determine—people will decide—that the trials and tribulations of congestion are so great, and cause so much frustration, that the trade-off is not worth it, and they will seek alternative means of transport. That is even more likely to happen when alternative means of transport present themselves as being more attractive than they are today—which is perhaps one of the greatest challenges facing the operators of the private sector train industry.
Earlier this week I was talking to Sir Richard Branson on the Terrace, as I am sure Labour Members were. He has great hopes and is very committed to the new trains that he is introducing on the west coast line. Perhaps it is time that trains offered a more bespoke service to the business traveller. I have travelled with West Anglia Great Northern, which provides a service of a different order to


that provided by some other companies. It goes out of its way to attract the business traveller—for instance, with free newspapers.
There will come a point at which people will say—indeed, I suspect that they have already said it in communities served by WAGN—that it is better to travel by train, because the company puts itself out to assist the business traveller, than to struggle with the motor car. Ultimately, the marketplace must determine these matters; I am not convinced that we will be able to do so here.
The Minister is providing a panoply of arrangements for congestion charging. A bloke called Frank invited me, and others with London residences, to support him in the mayoral elections last week. I gathered that the said Frank chappie was not in favour of congestion charging. Is that Frank's document that I see before me? The Minister is most helpful. Does he by any chance see a reference to congestion charging in the document? Does he see a reference to Frank's being in favour of congestion charging? I suspect not. It is a bit ambivalent.
If this fellow Frank was not in favour of congestion charging and, indeed, made that the key issue on his platform at last week's mayoral election, and if the Labour candidates for the London Assembly gave an undertaking—which the Prime Minister told us today was irrevocable—not to impose congestion charging, there does not seem to be much point in putting this measure in the Bill. What if, far from espousing the new opportunity presented by the Government, the flagship authorities positively distance themselves from it? We are spending a great deal of time on something that does not seem to have too many legs.

Mr. Tony Clarke: The hon. Gentleman says that the policy does not have too many legs, but, to a man, Conservative Members have opposed congestion charging. The hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Poole (Mr. Syms) have both done so. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that congestion charging exists already? If people travel to London or to any other city in Britain, they will find not only high car parking charges but parking meters, which act as congestion charges imposed by local authorities. What is the difference between a high car park charge, a parking meter and a congestion charge sensibly proposed by a local authority to reduce pollution?

Mr. Howarth: To a certain extent, a parking meter is a voluntary charge—people decide whether they will accept it or not. They can find a place that does not have parking meters and take the tube or whatever, but congestion charging is a mandatory charge that they can avoid only by not coming into the area where the charge is levied. There is, I grant, a similarity; I shall not be stupid about it. However—I do not wish to detain the House too much longer—the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd. and the Engineering Employers Federation have both made it clear that they are very concerned about congestion charging.

Mr. Snape: What about the CBI?

Mr. Howarth: The Engineering Employers Federation has a lot more to do with the constituency of the hon. Gentleman than the CBI.
Therefore, I believe that new clause 28 is a good measure. Schedule 11 provides for hypothecation of the net proceeds of receipts from congestion charging. The new clause says that the people who are to pay the charge should be the beneficiaries of it. There is no difference between the Opposition and Government on the principle of hypothecation. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) is saying that there is a case for the proceeds to be used
solely and exclusively for the purpose of improving roads and public transport for the benefit of those who are subject to the charge,
which seems a perfectly sensible proposition.
Before congestion charges are imposed—if they are—may I put the following suggestion to the Minister? One way in which congestion could be reduced is by adopting the type of policy that is used in Germany. I am told that we use it here, but I see no evidence of it, save on the A4 at Slough. In Germany, it is called die grüne Welle—the green wave. Traffic lights are sequenced so that, if people travel at a constant speed, the lights turn green as they approach them.
On our main roads into and out of London, we should introduce the policy of a green wave—it is nothing to do with the Green party, of course. At the moment, people set off from one traffic light and see that the next one in the distance is green, but, by the time they get to it, it has gone red. That must have a substantial impact on the volume of congestion in our major cities. I make a suggestion to the Minister—he can take it up for free: that practical proposition could be applied to traffic management in cities and will benefit the travelling public.

Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: I am sorry, but I have already spoken enough and I will not give way; forgive me.

Mr. Gray: I rise briefly to speak to an important new clause and to give the Minister the maximum time to reply to the debate and, by some means, to try to explain to the listening public and to others why he intends to bring in what will without question be a very damaging new stealth tax on the motorists of Britain, following the great increases in petrol tax and in vehicle excise duty.
There is no question about it: when the Minister brings in his congestion and workplace charging, it will be massively unpopular throughout the country and damaging to motorists. [Interruption.] If his response is that it will not be unpopular or damaging to motorists—the gasps from the Labour Benches suggest that that will be his response—I suggest that it will not do the work for which it is designed because, presumably, only those people who do not wish to pay the tax will get off the road.
Congestion and workplace charging have three possible purposes. The first, of course, is to reduce congestion; I will come back to that. The second is to raise funds for the specific purpose of improving public transport in general; that is what the new clause is about. The third—I have a shrewd suspicion that it may be the most realistic—is to raise funds in general for other Government purposes. It is perfectly legitimate for Governments to decide to introduce a new tax to fund


services such as schools or hospitals. Although there is nothing wrong with doing that, we must be clear that that is what we are doing.
The first option—introducing a tax to reduce congestion—seems the least likely to be successful. Let us imagine what would happen if there were such a tax. Let us imagine that the congestion tax for London was a punishing £10 per day, and that the parking charge was £3,000 annually—which is the figure being put around by the Road Haulage Association. Let us imagine that the people of London faced those taxes. What would happen when poor people and disabled people who had to get to work in London were driven off the cleared roads of London?
Two things would happen. First, the roads would be clear for exactly the wrong type of people—those who simply do not mind paying the tax, such as Members of Parliament. The roads would be nice and clear for us to get to this place easily, especially if parking charges—as in the Government's carefully crafted Bill—did not apply to parking at the House. The roads would also be nice and clear for fat cats in the City of London. However, the poor and other people who cannot pay, the ill and disabled, students and people going to football matches, doctors attending emergency surgeries and people going to man fire brigades, would simply not be able to work.
Nevertheless, good luck to the fat cats and to Members of Parliament. We know that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions likes the road to be clear for his two—or more—Jags. However, the tax will not reduce congestion.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman has just strolled into the Chamber, at the very last minute, without attending any of the debate. Now he wants to get a bit of a mention in his local newspaper by making a cheap intervention. In Committee, his interventions were simply not worth listening to. However, if he sits still and listens quietly, he might learn a thing or two. I have no intention of giving way to him.
The second problem with the principle of trying to reduce congestion by using congestion charging is the possible consequence of success. If the roads of London were clear, all those who currently stay at home because of road congestion would say, "I know what we're going to do—let's drive into London, into the city, because there's no congestion." The tax will have an effect exactly opposite to that intended. It could—if it works at all—increase congestion.
New clause 28 deals with how the money raised from such swingeing taxes—if they are introduced—should be used. I should point out that the Labour party seems to be in some disarray about whether charges will be introduced. Although Labour councillors in London's new Assembly seem to be saying that they do not want congestion charging, which they know would be electoral suicide, Mr. Livingstone—who, I believe, is still a Labour party supporter in one way or another—is all in favour of it.
The Government also seem to be all in favour of congestion charging; they propose to introduce it. They also included a congestion charging provision in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Although the

Assembly Members do not favour it, the Government do. However, let us imagine that Assembly Members did favour it. What would happen to the money? As I said—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman will know, transport in Greater London is dealt with in other legislation, not in the Bill. Perhaps he will speak to new clause 28.

Mr. Gray: Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the point that I was making is that the 1999 Act makes provision for congestion charging and charging for workplace parking. That provision was the first national exemplar of how such charging should work.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If we debate that subject, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to talk about those matters. However, new clause 28 is quite clear about what it deals with.

Mr. Gray: I had not intended to talk that much about the 1999 Act, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although it offers a useful exemplar.
The new clause specifies precisely what should happen to the money that will be raised by congestion and workplace charging, whether it is raised in London or elsewhere. The Bill's provisions will, of course, apply across the nation—as you correctly said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are two possibilities for what will happen to the money, the first of which is that it will be truly hypothecated. I shall deal with that possibility in a moment.
Secondly, the money could be used like normal taxation, for services such as schools and hospitals—as I said, that is a perfectly legitimate ambition of any Government. It reminds me of a comment made in this place by Mr. Lloyd George. When introducing vehicle taxation, he said that he needed to tax cars because more money needed to be spent on roads. He intended to hypothecate the money from vehicle excise duty and spend it all on improving Britain's roads. Today, 90 per cent. of that money is spent for other purposes. As long ago as Lloyd George's time, hypothecation was shown to be a myth.
The Government pay lip service to hypothecation. They say that they want to bring in a huge new tax on motorists to improve public transport. That is politically attractive, because there are people who will say "I don't mind paying the tax if it is going to get other people off the road so that I can use my car."
4.45 pm
However, there is no linkage between the places where public transport needs to be improved and where the tax would be raised. The tax would plainly be raised where congestion is worst—primarily the inner cities and some of the bigger towns—but much of the public transport improvement is needed in the countryside, in small towns and in the suburbs of our large towns, where provision is wildly inadequate. In London, for example, the tube is very important, but it exists only north of the Thames. To the south of the Thames there is only the Northern line. Would the money raised from congestion charging north of the Thames be used to improve public transport south of the Thames?
There is also no linkage between those who would pay the charges and those who would benefit from the spending. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made a good point about that. People coming into a city would pay the tax, but would not benefit from the subsequent improvements in public transport.
Thirdly, there is no linkage between the amount that would need to be spent on improvements to public transport and the amount that might be raised by the tax. What if the tax were seriously inadequate? Would the Government top it up in areas where it did not raise enough?
The Whip on my right hand side is making worrying noises about sitting down and giving the Minister time to reply. It is important that he should reply, because this is a wildly misplaced policy, as his colleagues in London are beginning to realise. That is why they object to it. It will not raise anything like enough for the public transport improvements that he describes. The policy is a public relations con designed to attract voters who would be happy to pay the tax if it cleared the roads of other people, but there is no evidence that the money raised would be spent on the public transport improvements about which the Minister has talked so often. For the money to be hypothecated properly, as it must be, it will need to be additional and permanent, not just for 10 years. It must also be targeted at those who pay the tax, who are not necessarily the same people who are suffering from traffic congestion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We have had an interesting debate, which, mercifully—with the possible exception of the speech of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray)—did not simply cover the ground that we had already covered in Committee.
We all recognise that the use of revenues raised by road user charging is an important issue that will be central to the success and public acceptability of any charging scheme. I should say at the outset that I cannot accept the new clause, but I should like to explain the reasons and remind the House of the ground-breaking arrangements for the use of the proceeds from charges that are already contained in schedule 11.
The Conservatives seek the indefinite hypothecation of the revenues raised by local authority road user and trunk road charging for spending on road improvements and public transport for the benefit of those who are subject to the charge. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) highlighted one of the clause's defects when he asked whether someone who was no longer subject to the charge would be entitled to receive the benefit. There are issues relating to people who do not own a car or people who have not used their car for particular journeys before the introduction of charging. I fear that if the new clause as currently drafted were incorporated in the Bill, it would almost certainly be an invitation to the litigious to challenge the validity of any road user charging scheme. However, I do not intend simply to fall back on the point that we believe that the new clause is defective. We accept it in the spirit in which it was offered and will address it in those terms.
It was a real pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) who had the difficult task of presenting the case for a new clause that was designed to make the

best use of the proceeds of road user charging, while at the same time swearing his party's undying opposition to the principle. It was not surprising that there was a smile on his face as he went through that process. I was reminded by the observation by my hon. Friend the Member for West Brornwich, East (Mr. Snape) that the hon. Member for Poole had presented the voice of sweet reason from the Opposition Benches in Committee.
The hon. Member for Poole raised the issue of London, as did a number of hon. Members. As you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the legislation does not cover London, other than in a few consequential ways. The powers in respect of congestion charging and road user charging were given in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, so this Bill is of more relevance to other areas. However, as the London issue has been raised, let me make it absolutely clear that it is for the mayor to decide whether a congestion charge should be introduced. That is the arrangement in the Greater London Authority legislation.
It is not the role of the Assembly to promote particular proposals; that is for the mayor to do. The role of the Assembly is to scrutinise, and its Labour Members will certainly scrutinise closely and carefully any proposals from the mayor, to ensure that they have been properly thought through, are well judged, proportionate and deliver real benefits for London.

Mr. Syms: The Conservatives oppose congestion charging, and I understood from the Labour manifesto on which the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the Assembly Members stood for election that there would be none of it for four years. Do I take it therefore that the Labour party and the Conservative party could combine to stop the mayor introducing such a scheme for at least four years?

Mr. Raynsford: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by reminding him of the terms of the manifesto that my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) put to the electorate of London. He said:
As mayor, I will have the power to introduce congestion charging. However, while I am not against congestion charging in principle, I do believe that we need to have public transport alternatives in place first: and if we are going to have them, we had better do it properly. Transport experts say that a proper electronic scheme could barely be introduced before the end of the mayor's first term.
That was the policy set out by the Labour candidate, and I have no doubt that Labour Members of the Assembly will follow a similar approach in scrutinising carefully, as is their responsibility, any proposals from the mayor.
Although he opposed charging, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, the hon. Member for Poole conceded that the decision should be left to the local authority. I welcome that view, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be ingenious when he—or perhaps it will be one of his hon. Friends—moves new clause 29, which refers to making, varying and revoking charging schemes, and would make it impossible for any scheme to be introduced without an affirmative resolution of the House. I would be most interested to know how the decision is to be left to the local authority in the light of that proposed new clause. That is a pleasure for us to look forward to later in this afternoon's proceedings.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, in his usual highly informed and colourful way, stressed the importance of local authority discretion and sought


reassurances about the application of the proceeds of congestion charging to improve public transport arrangements in the areas concerned. He will know that we have already given assurances that the proceeds must be used for the purposes of transport in line with the individual authority's local transport plan. Approval will be given only to schemes that have demonstrable benefits in line with such plans. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied with that assurance.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) emphasised again the importance of local decision making. He asked about co-operation between authorities, using the proceeds of congestion charging in neighbouring areas, if appropriate. I can happily give him the assurance that he seeks. That will be possible—provided, as I said in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, that the application is consistent with the authority's local transport plan.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who apologised personally to me for not being able to be here for my winding-up speech, gave a paean of praise to the joys of motoring. He cited the mayoral candidate, Mr. Steven Norris—to whom, incidentally, and perhaps significantly, he referred as the mayoral candidate rather than the Conservative mayoral candidate—as an advocate of motoring. Indeed, he quoted Mr. Norris's well known and much quoted comments about the pleasures of travelling in a motor car, but he sadly disappointed us by not reaching Mr. Norris's punchline about the implications of travelling on public transport with, I believe the phrase was, "dreadful human beings". Such an approach should not govern rational decision making about the benefits of respective forms of transport.
We have set out the principle of hypothecation and confirmed that hypothecated revenues will be available for 10 years, following which there will be a review. It seems a bit rich for the Conservatives to be pressing for the indefinite hypothecation of revenues from charges that they claim to oppose in principle. It is all the more curious, given that their 1996 Green Paper, which was in favour of giving local authorities charging powers, contained no guarantee that the revenues would be spent on improving local transport. That is an indication of how far the Conservative party has moved away from any credible position on transport.
The Bill represents a major breakthrough by guaranteeing at least 10 years' hypothecation for any charging scheme starting in the first 10 years. Unlike the previous Government, we recognise that that is crucial to the success and acceptability of a charging scheme. This is a new provision, and it is right that it should be reviewed after 10 years. In any event, it would not be appropriate to guarantee hypothecation indefinitely, because that might not deliver value for money in terms of transport improvements in the medium to longer term. That is why the Government intend to conduct an informed review of the hypothecation arrangements in schedule 11 before the hypothecation guarantee expires.
The review may decide that 100 per cent. hypothecation of charging revenues for transport spending should continue. Indeed, many hon. Members believe that more than 10 years' hypothecation will be necessary. However, that is not a decision that we need to take now. It will be much better to take it later, as is provided for in the Bill.
As for geographical coverage, I am sure that local authorities will want to spend much, perhaps all, of their net resources on improving the attractiveness and accessibility of the charged area. However, it may not be sensible to spend all the money in that way. Better road maintenance and better street lighting in suburban areas might well be an appropriate use for part of the proceeds from a scheme that derives its revenues from a city centre charge. That option is open to local authorities, and it is better that the decisions should be taken locally than centrally. That is why the Bill allows the money to be spent for any transport purpose covered by the local transport plan. That is surely the right approach.
I invite the hon. Member for Poole to think again and to resume his role as the voice of sweet reason on the Opposition Benches by withdrawing new clause 28.

Mr. Syms: I am afraid that I am disappointed by the Minister's response, and we shall press the new clause to a vote. We heard the hon. Gentleman reading from the small print of the Labour manifesto for the Greater London elections. We shall live in interesting times, and the Prime Minister's comments will come back to haunt the Government.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 376.

Division No. 189]
[5 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)
Gibb, Nick


Amess, David
Gill, Christoper


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gray, James


Baldry, Tony
Green, Damian


Beggs, Roy
Greenway, John


Bercow, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hague, Rt Hon William


Body, Sir Richard
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Boswell, Tim
Hammond, Philip


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hawkins, Nick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hayes, John


Brady, Graham
Heald, Oliver


Brazier, Julian
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hunter, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Butterfill, John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cash, William
Jenkin, Bernard


Chope, Christopher
Key, Robert


Clappison, James
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lansley, Andrew


Collins, Tim
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lidington, David


Cran, James,
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Day, Stephen
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Luff, Peter


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evans, Nigel
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Faber, David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fabricant, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Madel, Sir David


Flight, Howard
Major, Rt Hon John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Malins, Humfrey


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maples, John


Fox, Dr Liam
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fraser, Christopher
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Garnier, Edward
May Mrs Theresa





Moss, Malcolm
Swayne, Desmond


Norman, Archie
Syms, Robert


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Page, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Paice, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Paterson, Owen
Thompson, William


Pickles Eric
Townend, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Trend, Michael


Prior, David
Tyrie, Andrew


Randall, John
Viggers, Peter


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Walter, Robert


Robathan, Andrew
Wells, Bowen


Robertson Laurence
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Whittingdale, John


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Ruffley, David
Willetts, David


St Aubyn, Nick
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shepherd, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Yeo, Tim


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spicer, Sir Michael



Spring, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Streeter, Gary
Mrs. Eleanor Laing.



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cann, Jamie


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Caplin, Ivor


Ainger, Nick
Casale, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caton, Martin


Allan, Richard
Cawsey, Ian


Allen, Graham
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Chaytor, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Chidgey, David


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Church, Ms Judith


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clapham, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Austin, John
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ballard, Jackie


Barnes, Harry
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Beard, Nigel
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clelland, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clwyd, Ann


Berry, Roger
Coaker, Vernon


Blackman, Liz
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Coleman, Iain


Blears, Ms Hazel
Colman, Tony


Blizzard, Bob
Connarty, Michael


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cooper, Yvette


Borrow, David
Corbett, Robin


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Corston, Jean


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cotter, Brian


Bradshaw, Ben
Cousins, Jim


Brake, Tom
Cox, Tom


Brand, Dr Peter
Cranston, Ross


Breed, Colin
Crausby, David


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Browne, Desmond
Cummings, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Buck, Ms Karen


Burden, Richard
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Burgon, Colin
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Burnett, John
Dalyell, Tam


Burstow, Paul
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Cable, Dr Vincent
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Davidson, Ian


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)




Dawson, Hilton
Humble, Mrs Joan


Dean, Mrs Janet
Hurst, Alan


Denham, John
Hutton, John


Dismore, Andrew
Iddon, Dr Brian


Dobbin, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Donohoe, Brian H
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Doran, Frank
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dowd, Jim
Jamieson, David


Drew, David
Jenkins, Brian


Drown, Ms Julia
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Ennis, Jeff


Fearn, Ronnie
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Fisher, Mark
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Keeble, Ms Sally


Flint, Caroline
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Flynn, Paul
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Follett, Barbara
Kemp, Fraser


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Foster, Don (Bath)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Khabra, Piara S


Fyfe, Maria
Kidney, David


Gapes, Mike
Kilfoyle, Peter


Gardiner, Barry
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Kirkwood, Archy


Gibson, Dr Ian
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Gidley, Ms Sandra
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Godman, Dr Norman A
Laxton, Bob


Godsiff, Roger
Lepper, David


Goggins, Paul
Leslie, Christopher


Golding, Mrs Llin
Levitt, Tom


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Linton, Martin


Grocott, Bruce
Livsey, Richard


Grogan, John
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gunnell, John
Llwyd, Elfyn


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Lock, David


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Love, Andrew


Hancock, Mike
McAvoy, Thomas


Hanson, David
McCabe, Steve


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Harvey, Nick
McDonagh, Siobhain


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Macdonald, Calum


Healey, John
McDonnell, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
McFall, John


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
 McIsaac, Shona


Hepburn, Stephen
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Heppell, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hesford, Stephen
McNamara, Kevin


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McNulty, Tony


Hill, Keith
MacShane, Denis


Hinchliffe, David
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hodge, Ms Margaret
McWilliam, John


Hood, Jimmy
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mallaber, Judy


Hope, Phil
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Martlew, Eric


Howells, Dr Kim
Maxton, John


Hoyle, Lindsay
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)





Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moore, Michael
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Soley, Clive


Motley, Elliot
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Spellar, John



Squire, Ms Rachel


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis



Steinberg, Gerry


Mountford, Kali
Stevenson, George


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mudie, George
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mullin, Chris
Stinchcombe, Paul


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stringer, Graham


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Norris, Dan
Stunell, Andrew


Oaten, Mark
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Neill, Martin


Öpik, Lembit
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pearson, Ian
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Perham, Ms Linda
Timms, Stephen


Pickthall, Colin
Tipping, Paddy


Pike, Peter L
Todd, Mark


Plaskitt, James
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Pollard, Kerry
Touhig, Don


Pond, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Pope, Greg
Truswell, Paul


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Primarolo, Dawn
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Purchase, Ken
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Tyler, Paul


Quinn, Lawrie
Tynan, Bill


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Vaz, Keith


Rammell, Bill
Ward, Ms Claire



Wareing, Robert N


Rapson, Syd
Watts, David


Raynsford, Nick
Webb, Steve


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Welsh, Andrew


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
White, Brian


Rendel, David
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wicks, Malcolm


Rooney, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Roy, Frank
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Ruane, Chris
Willis, Phil


Ruddock, Joan
Wills, Michael


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Winnick, David


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wood, Mike


Salter, Martin
Woolas, Phil


Sanders, Adrian
Worthington, Tony


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wyatt, Derek


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Singh, Marsha
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Mike Hall and


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 30

USE OF RECEIPTS FROM LICENSING SCHEMES

'Moneys collected under a licensing scheme shall be used solely and exclusively for the purpose of reducing the business rates on those premises in the area where workplace parking spaces are subject to a licensing scheme.'.—[Mr. Syms.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Syms: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We now come to the second of the terrible twins. We have dealt with congestion charging and we are about to consider workplace parking. Although this topic was mentioned in the debate on new clause 28, that new clause referred only to congestion charging. This debate is purely about workplace parking, and I have been asked to make that point clear.

Mr. Gray: In view of what my hon. Friend has said, may I make a quiet apology to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who I wrongly accused of not understanding the Bill?

Mr. Syms: I am sure that the whole House will take that apology in the spirit in which it was given and that it will take a constructive approach to this topic.
Workplace parking is one of the key ideas in the Bill. It is another method by which the Government wish to raise money for their transport plans, but it has to be seen in the context of the £36 billion that is raised from motorists in Britain. The Government wish to give local authorities and transport authorities the ability to introduce workplace parking charges in parts or the whole of their areas if they so wish.
The proposal has caused a great deal of concern, to business in particular. Many businesses think that the costs of the scheme will fall on them rather than on their employees and that they would face a heavy burden. I remember that, in my youth, the Harold Wilson Government introduced the selective employment tax, which was a tax on employment. Workplace parking charges will also turn out to be a tax on employment, because the firms that have the most employees and offer the most workplace parking spaces are likely to have the biggest bills. The scheme will probably not affect firms with one or two employees.
As the Bill has gone through the House, representations have been made by some major companies that have been responsible and provided parking places for their staff so that they can get to work and earn their crust. Those companies are aggrieved that the tax will be levied on them. When a local authority collects the business rates, it is likely to list the number of parking spaces for which a company will have to pay and add a further charge to its rates.
A business in that position will be left with a difficult choice. Should it pay the charge for its employees or should it pass it on? There is a slight sting in the tale: if the company passes the charge on to its employees, it may be VAT-able. A higher charge will be paid and the Government will receive even more income in the form of VAT. Many businesses have expressed concern that the effect of the proposal is that businesses will reduce


the number of parking spaces that they provide, and that may displace parking on to highways and byways nearby and cause disruption.
If one reads the new clause carefully, one understands that it would make this part of the Bill inoperable. That is what we want to do, because we oppose the principle behind the proposal. A totally unjustified burden will be placed on businesses and it is likely to have an effect on jobs.
When the Committee considered the proposal, Ministers made it clear that workplace parking charges could be paid by employees, agents, suppliers, business customers and business visitors. They went on to say that the definition would include
pupils parking at their schools or colleges.—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 14 March 2000; c. 1014.]
Students, who have already had their grant reduced and have difficulties in paying for their education, would therefore have to pay to park their vehicles at colleges and universities.
In Committee we had a long debate on exemptions, and the only ones allowed by the Government are for NHS hospitals. Apart from that, it will be up to authorities introducing such schemes to determine exemptions. Concerns were expressed about local authorities having great difficulty in deciding what needed to be exempt and, indeed, in varying the charge for different parts of the borough and, perhaps, for different users.
We have therefore tabled new clause 30, which would effectively destroy this part of the Bill. Conservative Members are unashamed about admitting that: we think that workplace parking should go the same way as window taxes did in Georgian times, when the Government tried to collected money on windows.

Mr. Phil Woolas: It was a Tory Government.

Mr. Syms: I suspect that the Liberal Democrats were in power at the time.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Liberal Democrats?

Mr. Syms: All right then, Whigs.
We oppose the charge. The Government produced an interesting document entitled "Breaking the Logjam". In Committee, a number of points were made about it in relation to workplace and congestion charging, which may well be used together on traffic management. It was made clear that public transport must be improved to offer motorists a real choice before charging starts. "Breaking the Logjam" sets out an understanding of the potential of charges to damage business and commerce and highlights the need to protect the vitality of towns and city centres, including the need for a regional perspective to protect the sustainability of competing economic centres.
Many of our town and city centres are already struggling because of the cost of doing business in certain areas. A large number are already adversely affected by parking restrictions. Indeed, I believe that congestion charging—which we have just discussed—and charging for workplace parking could impose a real burden on

businesses trying to keep shops going in town centres. If we are not careful, that will be a great disincentive to the revitalisation of our urban areas, and we should all be concerned about that.

Mr. Geraint Davies: As I understand it, the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that we should not have workplace parking schemes. However, the new clause says that we should, and proposes that the cost should be taken off business rates, so that there is no net impact on business. It would therefore introduce more and more red tape for business. If the hon. Gentleman does not want workplace parking schemes, he should table an amendment to that effect. The new clause, however, would involve more and more bureaucracy for business, which now knows what the Conservative party stands for.

Mr. Syms: If our new clause is accepted, introducing workplace schemes would not be worth while as they would not generate significant revenue. In most instances, money taken from companies would have to be given back to them. The proposal is therefore virtually revenue-neutral.
No sensible authority would wish to introduce a scheme from which it received no great benefit and which, perhaps, involved a cost to it.
The paper, "Road charging options for London", is relevant as that city is one of the few areas where a study of workplace parking has been done. The paper suggests that, for a parking space in central London, a charge of £3,000 might be levied. The chairman of the London planning advisory committee, Nicky Gavron—who doubtless will be quoted on many occasions in this Chamber—called for a charge of £5,000 a year per parking space in central London.
We are therefore talking about considerable sums, although the figures would be different for charges collected in other regions. However, if one counts parking spaces needed by businesses and comes up with a figure of £100 or £200 a parking space, for many businesses, that adds considerably to their costs throughout their year. That adds to the cost of employing people, which will have a pretty bad effect on business.

Mr. Gray: In addition to the effect on business, is my hon. Friend aware of the recent series of written answers which demonstrates that the Government have about 43,000 workplace parking slots? Given that, what effect will the proposal have on taxes?

Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but the Government can probably look after themselves. I am concerned about small businesses that are struggling to meet their payrolls and to do business. They already pay substantial tax. On top of business rates, they are to be charged for providing parking for employees.
We go through fashions in this country. Occasionally, planning policy is that firms should have parking spaces, but then it is decided that it ought to be discouraged. I know that in the City of London at one stage, several buildings were built without parking spaces. Eventually, many had to be knocked down because they were not suitable. People wanted parking spaces to enable them to do their jobs.
We are opposed to workplace parking charges because they will not benefit the nation, business or people who work in businesses. It will put business in the difficult position of having to decide whether to require employees to pay for their parking spaces at work. Then, we come to the question of whether employees should be compensated in higher salaries. The proposal will increase the costs of employment, particularly in urban areas, which is not a good thing.
We have had many representations on this topic. The Confederation of British Industry ran a survey in London in which there was overwhelming opposition to workplace parking charges. Business made comments such as
In the long run it will simply add to the cost of employing Londoners. Expensive for small companies, adding costs does not consider the needs of the companies. For example our two spaces are for sales staff who regularly drive to meetings outside London or who have "samples" in their car.
Those comments apply across the country.
Another business in the CBI survey said of the proposal:
It's using businesses to solve the transport problem—this is a Government responsibility.
I do not wholly agree with that—responsibility is partly the Government's, although business must play its role—but workplace charging is not the right way forward. Another business commented:
Car spaces are provided because they are needed by us to run our business which involves a lot of travelling.
There are many such quotations.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the impact of such charges will be first, to reduce the number of spaces, which will free up quite a lot of aggregate space for urban development; secondly, to encourage people to use public transport; and, thirdly, to encourage people to live near to where they work? Does he agree that those results are all environmentally beneficial and will probably lubricate the economy—people will take fewer journeys, on public transport, and there will be better use of urban space?

Mr. Syms: I am afraid that I do not share the hon. Gentleman's rosy vision. People live in particular areas because they like to do so. Many people live in the countryside because they prefer to do so. London is of course a nice place to live—I am sure that many areas of it are being regenerated, which I welcome—but taxation on workplace parking is not a productive approach. Costs will be substantial.
There is even the problem of definitions, which we discussed in Committee on several occasions. What qualifies as "a workplace"? In Committee, I used the example of a builders' merchants. If one is a builder, as I am—I better declare an interest—one would be charged for parking in a space at the builders' merchants because one is trade custom. However, members of the public who are buying garden furniture and perhaps a little cement would not be charged.
There is the issue of liberty. Local authorities will become involved in counting parking spaces and will have the right to enter people's premises to ensure that they are not trying to avoid the charge. In effect, there will be licences for parking spaces.
The proposal gives rise to many difficulties. It is instructive that the Government, who are a meddling Government, plan to introduce a workplace parking tax that will meddle a great deal in people's lives. I make no apology for the new clause, which would make the measure unworkable, as no sensible authority would go forward with it.
People feel strongly about the issue. Many of them need a motor car to conduct business. I do not believe that the Government are proposing a decent measure for the future, and I therefore oppose it.

Mr. Geraint Davies: I shall make a couple of simple observations about the new clause. As I said in my earlier intervention, it would encourage business parking place charging as a form of taxation and as a substitute for normal rates. As I said in my second intervention, a workplace parking scheme could have beneficial effects and provide business incentives by reducing the number of spaces, increasing the use of public transport, and renewing and reviving some of the space at present used for parking.
The scheme would generate more red tape, but it would encourage those virtuous outputs. However, under the new clause there would be no opportunity for hypothecation to promote environmental benefits and more public transport provision to enable people to use public transport instead of their cars.
As I made clear in my interventions, the Opposition's agenda makes no sense, and their case shows no coherence. If they are against workplace parking charges, they should say so. Their new clause suggests that they are for it at a lower cost, but they are not willing to put in the investment to provide the public transport and environmental infrastructure needed to build a more sustainable Britain.

Mr. Don Foster: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) for his apology, which he made with his characteristic courtesy and generosity. I am grateful to him for that. He made it clear that in the context of the new clause, we are speaking about workplace charging.
As the House knows, workplace charging is intended as an additional measure alongside others that have been mentioned, not least road user charging, as part of the strategy for reducing congestion on our roads, to which I referred in an earlier speech.
During that speech, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who sadly is no longer in his place, challenged me by suggesting that all the current journeys that are made by car are absolutely necessary, and there was no possibility of reducing the number of such journeys. Amazingly, since that comment from the hon. Gentleman, into my hand has come some information which clearly demonstrates that he is unaware of the benefits that could be gained by persuading some of the people whose car journeys are less necessary to change to public transport.
I was interested to read that a motoring organisation, the RAC, concluded from one of its surveys that many car trips that are currently made do not have to be made by car. According to the RAC study, for up to 30 per cent. of car journeys, the trip was hardly necessary, or a perfectly good alternative was already available.
The challenge for all of us is to produce strategies that will enable us to persuade people who make unnecessary car journeys not to make the journey at all, or to switch to other modes of transport, preferably high-quality forms of public transport. Many strategies, in addition to those that the Bill proposes, are available.
I hope that the Government will accept the need to provide much greater support not only for rural buses, but for other forms of community transport. We could even be radical and consider tax breaks for people who have season tickets for different forms of public transport. We could consider more radical approaches to car pooling schemes. In my constituency, an organisation called Take 5 works with some of the major employers in the area to try to persuade them to co-operate effectively on finding ways of encouraging their employees to pool car journeys to and from work. Some big organisations—the best example is the British Airports Authority at Heathrow—have effective, computerised car pooling schemes.
We could consider a more radical use of variable speed limits, and make better use of our existing road network. Perhaps the Minister who replies to the debate will tell us about the Government's proposals for that. I am sure that you prefer to use public transport whenever you can, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you may have noticed on the rare occasions when you use your car that drivers on motorways become infuriated with motorists who sit in the middle lane and clog it up. There is an urgent need for education about correct lane discipline on our motorways.
While other strategies exist, they do not deliver the goods on their own. It is therefore right for the Government to consider alternative strategies such as congestion charges, which we discussed in our previous debate, and workplace charging. Liberal Democrat Members believe that workplace charging has a part to play in the battle against congestion. We are less convinced about it than about congestion charging, but we acknowledge that the decision will rightly be left to local government. Local councils know the problems of their area best and are therefore best placed to make a judgment about the appropriateness of introducing workplace charging.
Fears abound that workplace charging will be introduced throughout the country and that it will be levied on the staff of a corner shop in a tiny village. That will not happen. It is not the Government's intention, as I understand it. I cannot think of a local council that would contemplate such a proposal.
The Government are keen to give local decision making full rein, but they are not prepared to be sufficiently radical. In Committee, we had an interesting, albeit unproductive debate about extending workplace charging. Many of us know about the problems that out-of-town shopping centres create and the volume of traffic that they generate. The number of journeys to and from such centres can be an added cause of congestion. Yet the Minister has been unwilling to accept the possibility of extending workplace charging to such locations because the Government have clearly said that it can be introduced only in areas that are congested, not in places where people's movement to and from them might cause congestion. I would hope that even at this stage the Minister may be willing to consider giving greater flexibility to local authorities.
If we go ahead with workplace charging as the Government envisage, it is right that the money raised, just as with the money raised from congestion charging, is likely to be best spent by being invested in making improvements in our public transport infrastructure and other related measures to improve the environment. On that basis, it would be wrong to accept the new clause, which would lead to moneys raised from workplace charging being used for a purpose entirely different from that originally intended, and one that we fully support.
It is strange that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) should introduce a new clause related to how money raised from workplace charging should be used when he and his hon. Friends are entirely opposed to the concept. I suppose that we should be grateful to him for moving the new clause, because it has given us an opportunity to debate these issues.
As there is plenty of time for the debate to continue and as there will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to expand his views at great length, he might at least take a few minutes to explain whether the Conservative party believes that there is a congestion problem on the roads. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) was willing to acknowledge that there is a significant problem. He acknowledged also that it was costing business and individual motorists large amounts of money. However, it is not clear whether that is the official view of the Conservative party. It is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should confine himself to the terms of the new clause and not go wide of them.

Mr. Foster: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that the clause suggests that money raised from workplace charging should be used for a particular purpose. Yet the hon. Member for Poole, in introducing it, made it clear that he was opposed to such charging. I was merely seeking to ascertain whether he was opposed to it and whether he accepted that there is a congestion problem. If so, I wanted to know what proposals he would make for solving the problems.

Mr. Syms: A Government that raises £36 billion in tax should spend a little more than at present on increasing capacity rather than taxing and restricting people.

Mr. Foster: That is a helpful intervention. If money is to be spent on increasing capacity, the hon. Gentleman's implication is twofold. First, he would be prepared to take away some current Government revenues from the purposes to which they are being applied. Presumably that means that he would be happy to see less money spent on pensioners, health or education. Secondly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the new clause.

Mr. Foster: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course I accept your stricture.
Unlike the Conservative party, we believe that congestion is causing a problem. We believe also that there is a wide range of strategies that can be used to address it, and that within that range there is a place for


workplace charging. That is in areas where local authorities determine that it is the most appropriate way forward. We shall not be able to support the new clause.

Mr. Owen Paterson: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and to resume the contacts that we had in Committee, although it is regrettable that the Government did not listen to the sensible arguments that we made. The proposals for workplace charging are totally pernicious. They will not work. They will not affect congestion in the countryside and small country towns that I know. They constitute a brutal imposition of tax on the benighted British road user.
British motorists and road hauliers are the most heavily taxed and the least rewarded in Europe. The Automobile Association has carried out a survey that shows that British motorists suffer from the worst road congestion in western Europe. They pay the most for petrol and diesel. They pay the most for their cars. They are the most highly taxed and they receive least return on investment in roads and public transport.
In the Budget, the Government trumpeted the increases in line with inflation on fuel duty and vehicle excise duty as a blinding flash of light that showed that they had seen reason at last, but British hauliers are still easily the most heavily taxed in western Europe. The vehicle excise duty on a heavy truck has been reduced only to £3,950 compared with £308 in Portugal, £328 in Spain or £358 in Luxembourg. I could continue, but I expect that other hon. Members wish to speak. Diesel costs 67p a litre in the United Kingdom, but 36p in Luxembourg and 35p in Belgium, so is it a surprise that Britain's hauliers are either closing or flagging out and going abroad?

Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Paterson: I am delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Snape: I realise that the hon. Gentleman normally sticks faithfully to the script provided by the Road Haulage Association, but, as he mentions flagging out, can he tell the House the percentage of foreign hauliers on Britain's roads and how much it has increased or decreased since last year?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can worry about hauliers another time, but not during this debate.

Mr. Paterson: I shall follow your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will not be led down the wicked byways suggested by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), but I should be happy to give him those figures later. The Library supplied them to me last year.
The British road user is getting a lousy deal. Less than a sixth of the £36 billion taken in tax is put back into roads and local transport. The increases in line with inflation in the Budget were £715 million, but the Government will spend only £280 million extra on transport. In my rural area, which has not been addressed by the Government in any of these debates, 95 per cent. of freight goes by road and 67 per cent. of people in Shropshire drive to work in

cars, but there is a £94 million backlog of road repairs and winter maintenance extends to only 22 per cent. of the network. Those are being ripped off by the Government. There is no other term for it.

Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Paterson: I am delighted to give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bercow: I am listening to my hon. Friend's exposition with great interest and attention. Is he aware of the strength of opposition to workplace charging that has been expressed consistently and eloquently by an 82-year-old constituent of mine? Mrs. Elizabeth Zettl of High street, Buckingham, regards with repugnance the Government's damaging proposals. She travels across my constituency to undertake voluntary charity work in Buckingham. She would be savaged by the Government's proposals.

Mr. Paterson: I am delighted to hear about Mrs. Zettl and entirely sympathise with her predicament. Like every other motorist, £8 of every £10 she puts in her tank goes to Ministers, who spend it on other things.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not discuss such matters, which are not before us. We are debating new clause 30, which was tabled by his Front Benchers. What goes in a constituent's fuel tank has nothing to do with the new clause.

Mr. Paterson: I listened carefully to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing moneys that are collected under a licensing scheme. My argument is that the British road user is so highly taxed that he cannot afford to spend any more moneys on any other scheme. I support the new clause because it has the splendid effect of neutralising this thoroughly loathsome and pernicious measure to tax parking spaces.
Mrs. Zettl is in good company. The British Chambers of Commerce has said:
Business will face a bill of at least £2 billion a year should the Government's ill-thought out proposals for workplace charging come to fruition. Such a policy will serve only to put firmly into reverse any improvements to business competitiveness derived through greater investment in transport.
Non-domestic parking charging would do little to change behaviour as the tax is charged to businesses rather than individuals. If charges are not, as is likely, passed to staff, the charge will operate as an additional tax on business. If the charge is passed to staff, business will have to act, again, as an unpaid tax collector. The charge could also cause friction between employer and employees.
I think that they are understating the case. It is a cast-iron certainty that the charge will cause serious friction between employer and employees.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend helpfully points out that the charges are levied on the business or organisation rather than on the individual user undertaking his or her duties for that business or organisation. Does he agree with me that it is a legitimate cause for concern that charities could be savagely hit by the proposal for workplace charging? They would have to foot the bill, their revenues would suffer, and as a result they would


do less good for the community. The measure is utterly pernicious, wrong-headed and should have no place in our deliberations.

Mr. Paterson: I entirely agree. Those points were made in Committee, but regrettably were ignored by the Government. My constituents who drive to the college in Shrewsbury, which is a distance of 20 miles, will also be clobbered. Some of them are the least able to afford a new tax. People who have to attend training may drive to Wrexham or Telford. They will not be heavily remunerated if they are changing jobs, so they are in the most vulnerable position and will not be able to pay these charges.
A scion of Sainsbury's sits on the Government Benches in the other place. I have had a letter from Sainsbury's development policy manager, Mr. Huw Williams, who says:
The Company believes that the introduction of a workplace parking levy presents innumerable practical problems. The opportunities for evasion and/or the implications of people's attempts to avoid paying the levy have not been adequately considered in the Bill or accompanying draft guidance.
Sainsbury's is particularly concerned about the difficulties that it is likely to encounter in many locations in differentiating between parking provided for shoppers, which are therefore exempt, and spaces used by its staff.
Mrs. Zettl is also in good company in that the Institute of Directors has carried out a survey. It is a substantial organisation with a membership of 51,000, 48,000 of whom are based in this country. They were asked whether they supported strongly or opposed strongly allowing councils to levy workplace parking charges. An incredible 81 per cent. opposed the charges, 61 per cent. of them strongly. It was interesting that the directors were also asked about their likely reaction to the effect of this horrible measure. Only 12 per cent. considered that the charges would encourage people not to drive to their premises and, amazingly, 18 per cent. said that they would consider relocating. This measure will be counter-productive.
Those companies fear that people who visit them will vote with their wheels. In Committee, I cited the case of the towns in my constituency. A town such as Oswestry does not have one business that is more than 10 or 15 minutes' walk from a residential area. That shows the crass impracticality of the measure. Ministers have not worked in business or been to a country area such as Shropshire. It is obvious that, to avoid the charges, people will park their cars in the residential areas and walk into town. The measure is even more pernicious in that it will hurt businesses that are situated outside towns, where there is no option. People will park in the lanes and clog up the roads.
This is a thoroughly ill-thought-out measure. It is nothing less than a tax. It is a means of giving local authorities a method of raising money for local transport schemes that will not come from central Government. That is what it is all about. Time and again in Committee we came across the supine inability of Ministers to negotiate any battle with the Treasury and win. Every time, they came out worst, and they have had to muddle through and come up with such tack-handed schemes to replace money that should rightly come from central

Government, if it is to come from anywhere at all. The measure gives local authorities the right to raise money for schemes, because it is almost certain that central Government will reduce their support.
This measure does not even have the support of what should be good, loyal councils. In Committee, I quoted Mr. Emmerson from the Telford development agency. He said that the agency was looking into the possibility of postponing putting this scheme into practice for seven years on the ground that Telford does not have any congestion. It is almost certain to have to go for a scheme in order to raise money. That proves the point. Ministers are incapable of negotiating effectively with the Treasury, and they are imposing through the back door yet another vicious tax, which will make every one of my constituents worse off and every one of the businesses in my constituency less competitive.
Ministers do not understand how things work on the ground. I support new clause 30 because it has the splendid feature of totally neutralising this horrible proposal.

Mr. Snape: I apologise to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) for not being present when he moved the new clause. I was doing an interview for the BBC—alas not on this subject.

Mr. Bercow: On buses.

Mr. Snape: Not on buses either. I hope the hon. Member for Poole will forgive me.
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). If he will forgive me for saying so, his speech does not improve with repetition. He made it several times over the months in Committee. I know that he does not like the charges, but I wish that he would try to understand them. No one will force Telford or any other authority to implement these charges. The legislation gives them the right to do so. The hon. Gentleman avoided speaking to the new clause, although I do not want to go too far down that road in case I am accused of doing your job, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I could not possibly aspire to that.
I had the measure of the hon. Gentleman fairly early on in the Committee. His greatest wish is that Eddie Stobart will name a lorry after him. Time after time, he expressed his view that road hauliers are wonderful.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Why not?

Mr. Snape: Eddie Stobart might name a lorry after the hon. Lady as well.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire made the same speech time and again in Committee, completely misunderstanding the purpose of the legislation. He trots out the old figures about so much raised from motorists and so little spent on roads. We have done that issue to death, and none of it has gone in. The hon. Gentleman gives the impression that every morning he goes down to his local road hauliers, has a load of pre-mixed concrete injected in one ear, is given a brief and turned loose on the rest of us. I wish that he would listen occasionally and consider the legislation—even the new clause that his own party is proposing.

Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance because, not for the first time,


we have been told in the Chamber that such and such a matter cannot be debated because it has previously been considered in Committee. This is a serious point. Am I not right in thinking that the legislation is to be reported from the deliberations of the Committee to the House? Those of us who did not have the immense privilege of serving on the Committee, but are now having the luxuriating lather of participation in the Report stage, want to hear my hon. Friend's speech because we did not have the pleasure of hearing it on the first occasion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The amendments and new clauses before us have been selected by Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is speaking within the terms of the new clause, and I am happy to listen to him.

6 pm

Mr. Snape: I suspect that, in his heart of hearts, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is happy to listen to me as well. At least I promise him the odd new phrase, which, it appears, is more than the hon. Member for North Shropshire can deliver.
A much more interesting speech was made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who—again, not for the first time—makes me wish that he would renounce the false doctrines of the Liberal Democrats and, as they used to say, come home to Labour. His was a speech that I would be proud to have made, had I the ability to be as lucid and well informed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Old Labour.

Mr. Snape: We are all old Labour—apart from my hon. Friend, who may have moved on a bit. Anyway, given his speech, the hon. Member for Bath would have fitted quite well in the old Labour party alongside me. He correctly drew attention to the weaknesses in the new clause, and the thinking behind the Government's original proposal to introduce workplace charges, despite their obvious unpopularity.

Mr. Paterson: The hon. Gentleman and I enjoyed our exchanges in Committee, when he rejoiced in the nickname "Bertie Bus". He was always cheerful, and always gave a roly-poly response. I heard that response many times. This is the hon. Gentleman's last chance to prove that the Government's proposal will not make businesses less competitive in areas such as Shropshire. We are always given the roly-poly response; we are never presented with any specific arguments.

Mr. Snape: I do respond to the hon. Gentleman, but unfortunately he does not listen, or else he does not understand. I realise that he had the doubtful benefit of going to one of those posh schools, but he does not appear to be capable of listening. I am concerned about that, but I will try again.
The measure will make no difference in Shropshire if the councils that the hon. Gentleman mentioned decide not to implement it. It is as simple as that. Does he get it?
I am worried about the hon. Gentleman. I cast my mind back to the late 1960s and the last days of steam on the railways, when most of my generation fancied becoming

engine drivers. Given his demeanour and his features, the hon. Gentleman probably pretended to drive a racing car around the playground. He has not come on at all since then. His speeches give the impression that nothing matters except the road haulage industry and the motorist, and misrepresent the purpose of the Bill to a considerable extent. [Interruption.]
I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman, but he is obviously not listening. He is having a conversation with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I despair.

Mr. Paterson: I am waiting to hear the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Snape: I have just presented it. It is necessary for local authorities to seek these powers. The Bill, and the new clause to which we should be addressing our remarks—I, at least, am doing so—mean that if local authorities such as those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman wish to implement the legislation, they are free to do so. If they do not, there is no element of compulsion. Do I take the hon. Gentleman with me thus far?

Mr. Paterson: Yes. But if, as is feared, central Government do not provide the funds for transport schemes, authorities will be forced to introduce charges that are quite inappropriate for rural areas.

Mr. Snape: They will not be forced to do anything. The new clause relates to the way in which we spend the revenues raised by the charges.

Mr. Syms: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Snape: I shall be delighted to do so in a moment, but first I must respond to the hon. Member for North Shropshire. It is a bit like knocking a nail into concrete, but I have got to try.
I will say this for the last time. The purpose of the Bill and the new clause is to give powers to local authorities, if they desire to use them. The hon. Gentleman keeps going off on that barmy tangent of his, saying that a Labour Government will starve authorities of capital and they will have to use those powers. There is not a shred of evidence for that; as far as we can see, it is just assertion. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was long on assertion and pretty short on facts for the eight weeks—or 80 weeks, or however long it was—of the Committee stage.

Mr. Syms: Let me reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). This year, the Government gave a borrowing figure of some £754 million in relation to grant to local authorities, but only about £13 million of that consisted of grant. There is a danger that the Government will say to local authorities, "You can raise money; it is up to you whether you do it, but we are not giving you anything." That will force local authorities to make decisions, whether they want to or not.

Mr. Snape: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman—who usually tries to be fair about these matters—will agree that that would apply regardless of the political hue of the


Government of the day, and regardless of the political hue of the local authority. His is a reasonable hypothesis, but it is no more than that. It is certainly not the intention behind the Bill, whose aim is to put more money into local transport generally, and to find ways of allowing councils to raise revenue in their areas if they choose to do so. I would expect members of the self-styled party of freedom to favour such legislation. They may not agree with its purpose, but I should have thought that the principle would please them.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman referred disparagingly to Radley, the school attended by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). Does he honestly believe that it would be acceptable for workplace charges to be imposed on teachers parking their cars—as they would have—at my former state comprehensive school, Finchley Manorhill, in the Finchley and Golders Green constituency? It would be a monstrous imposition on people of modest means. Does the hon. Gentleman not see that?

Mr. Snape: Of course I do—and if anything is likely to turn me off the principle of comprehensive education, it is learning that the hon. Gentleman went to a comprehensive school.
I meant no disrespect to the school of the hon. Member for North Shropshire. I am sure that it is a good school, and I am sure that somewhere behind that bluff veneer is quite a bright chap, but he concealed that very well for the eight or nine weeks of the Committee stage, which worries me.
Conservative Members continue to give hypothetical instances, which disguise their total opposition to the principle of the charges. I understand that—it is a perfectly tenable view—but I wish they would not try to obscure their view behind the smokescreen so elegantly woven by the hon. Member for Buckingham, and the one not so elegantly woven by the hon. Member for North Shropshire.

Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Snape: I am still mulling over the hon. Gentleman's contribution. He cited an opinion poll of the Institute of Directors. I have never joined the Institute of Directors, because it is not an organisation in which I put much faith in terms of political acumen, but let me ask the hon. Gentleman this: if the same question were put to the Institute of Directors about income tax rather than congestion charges, would it receive a similar response? Of course it would. None of us likes paying taxes: that is the way of the world. I do not like it, and nor does anyone else. However, we must somehow tackle congestion, especially in inner cities, and we wait in vain for any constructive suggestion from the Opposition.
I know why Opposition Members tabled the new clause, and I understand it; but an organisation that is, perhaps, more reputable than the one prayed in aid by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, the Confederation of British Industry, has had a few words to say about the levies. It suggests that there should be a degree of flexibility. It does

not say that it is in favour of the charges—indeed, it is opposed to them—but it acknowledges that the Government want to tackle congestion, especially, although not exclusively, in inner cities. It says:
We would welcome flexibility to allow, for example, the local authority to raise and administer the levy—
the workplace parking charge, that is—
through some form of "pay and display" approach, as has been suggested by some businesses in the West Midlands. This would remove the administrative burden from business and levy the charge directly on the user.
My hon. Friend the Minister will say that the problem with that is enforcement. We all know that there are problems with enforcement of parking charges anywhere, but I do not think the CBI's view unreasonable, and, when we are discussing how to spend revenues raised through the charge, it is worthy of consideration.
Finally, let me repeat that no taxes are popular. This is perhaps less popular than most, but the alternative is to do nothing. Finally—I mean it this time—let me say this. The hon. Member for Bath mentioned the problems of out-of-town shopping centres, and the question of whether charges should be raised from either staff or shoppers. If the hon. Member for North Shropshire came to the west midlands a bit more often—

Mr. Paterson: I live there.

Mr. Snape: All right. I meant the west midlands conurbation. If he went somewhere such as Merry Hill, he would see the misery caused to those who live around a major shopping centre as a result of the over-dependence, in their view and in their words—I will show him the letters—on car usage by both staff and shoppers going to and from a major shopping centre.
If we are to have the charges—the hon. Member for Bath mentioned similar situations—my hon. Friend the Minister should look at extending them to out-of-town shopping centres, largely because confining the tax to inner-city areas leads to the type of accusations that we have heard from Conservative Members today. My hon. Friend looks a little incredulous. It may be that I may have misread the legislation and that the go-ahead can be given to the use of such charges in out-of-town shopping centres. I should be surprised if that were the case, but it is an area that we should look at. If we are to discuss and to debate new clauses about how the charges levied are to be spent, it is relevant to look at how they are raised in the first place and, in particular, at the area in which they are raised.
Let me conclude—I mean it this time. As I have said, no taxes are popular. Any neutral who wandered into the Chamber to listen to some of the arguments, which have been well rehashed and well rehearsed by Conservative Members, would believe that there was no congestion problem anywhere in the UK. We all know that there is. It is getting greater and greater. Doing nothing is not an option. From that point of view, the Bill is to be welcomed and the new clause should be resisted.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: It is curious that at this late hour in the history of the Bill, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), whose contributions we enjoyed enormously in Committee, is trying to get down


to the basics of the measure, but he is wrong—it is not about reducing congestion; it is purely and simply about raising a tax on business.
The hon. Gentleman has been in the House a long time and he is an old soldier as far as the Government are concerned. He knows perfectly well that if the Government give local authorities the option to introduce a tax on business, the Treasury will say, "We will cut their money because they can make up the difference by introducing the new tax." If I had time to go to the Library, I am sure that, with some research, I could come back with countless examples of where that has happened. It is purely and simply a tax on business—another one from the Government that business will have to pay.
There is no suggestion that people who need their cars to go to work, particularly in areas such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) has described, will stop using their cars. They cannot. It would be grossly inefficient for them to park their cars on the outskirts of towns and take public transport. They will just foot the bill, or the company will have to foot the bill. It is another tax that makes companies less competitive. The usual decline of business will be caused by it.
My hon. Friends have been right to introduce the new clause. There has been criticism of it from the representative of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), and from Labour Members, but again we are wise to the matter. We know that the Government will introduce the tax. All we are trying to do with the new clause is give some of the money back to the business that is being taxed. That would be fair and justifiable. The Government's warm words about helping business are always belied by their actions. It is a classic case of another stealth tax on business, which business will have to pay. It will not help one jot to reduce congestion on the roads of our city centres.

Mr. Hill: It has been a fascinating debate, with many important speeches and observations. I hope that time will permit me to return to some of the points that have been made, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), and the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster), for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for North Salop who gave his usual rant on the subject of the road haulage industry. It will be a particular pleasure to return to that subject.
It is important, particularly in the light of the helpful and typically highly informed speech by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), to clarify that the Government have no present intention to extend licensing schemes to out-of-town shopping centres. I confirm that there are no powers in existing legislation to secure any such extension. It is possible under the terms of the Bill to apply workplace parking provisions to out-of-town situations where there is a congestion problem, but I need to make it crystal clear that the Bill cannot apply to shoppers parking in or out of town.
The hon. Member for Bath looks a little disappointed. I would be happy to learn from him that it is current Liberal Democrat policy to extend such provisions.

[Interruption.] I take it from his sedentary assent that that is the case. I hope that the electors of Bath will bear that in mind when it comes to the next general election.

Mr. Don Foster: Just to clarify the point, I neither proposed such an extension nor suggested it. Nor is it part of my party's policy, but the voters of Bath might be pleased to see that happen because of the impact it would have on Cribbs Causeway. It might persuade rather more of them to shop in Bath itself and to help the local economy, so I would not be too concerned if I did propose it.

Mr. Hill: I am fascinated by that response because, on a number of occasions in Standing Committee, and indeed in this debate, the hon. Gentleman has sought to persuade the Government to extend the workplace parking provisions to out-of-town shopping centres. Now we learn that it is not his party's policy—that is absolutely typical Liberal Democrat ambivalence.
I return to the substance of our exchanges. I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). We have had a wide-ranging debate, but let me remind the House that new clause 30 would require revenue from workplace parking levy schemes to be used only to reduce business rates on premises in the area of a licensing scheme.
I propose to overlook the fact that the new clause flatly contradicts the previous Conservative new clause because, in my usual spirit of reasonableness, I am willing to acknowledge that, on the face of it, new clause 30 has some merits. That is obviously a source of consternation to the hon. Gentleman because he came as close as dammit—if that is an acceptable parliamentary expression—to conceding that it was a wrecking new clause. However, the fact is that it bears some consideration.
The measure would still give businesses an incentive to reduce the number of workers commuting to work by car—very good. Businesses providing relatively high levels of employee parking would pay a higher levy than those providing lower levels—very good. Recycling the revenue raised to reduce business rates in the area of the licensing scheme would mean that the levy placed no additional costs on business overall, although some individual businesses would be winners and some losers—very good, too.
The drawback to new clause 30 is that there would be no extra funding for local transport improvements. We believe that the success of charging and licensing schemes relies on the twin effect of their acting as a demand management tool and as a source of additional funding for transport improvements. In short, in addition to the workplace parking levy giving an economic incentive to encourage more people to switch from car use, substantial improvements to public transport, traffic management, cycling and walking provision will be vital to tackling congestion successfully. That is why the Bill gives schemes a guarantee of a minimum period of 100 per cent. hypothecation.
In our discussion of the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, we heard Opposition Members stress the need for people to have alternatives to driving to work before new charges are put in place. We also heard about the particular problems of people in rural areas such as Salop,


who might drive to a nearby town or city to work. In answer, I have stressed that the Secretary of State will expect public transport improvements to be made in advance of new charges, and that the Bill allows local traffic authorities scope to fund complementary transport improvements in neighbouring rural areas. The hon. Member for Bath raised that issue, and I am very happy to repeat that reassurance. The Bill clearly makes that provision.

Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hill: I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for North Salop.

Mr. Paterson: I really must warn the Minister, for his own sake, not to use the abbreviation "Salop", which causes tremendous unhappiness. The abbreviation—as I have just managed to persuade the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency—is Shrops. However, does the Minister agree that in a constituency such as mine, with 98 villages, comprehensive public transport is inconceivable?

Mr. Hill: An entirely comprehensive transport scheme would be difficult to ensure. However, in the current three-year period, the Government's rural bus initiative has committed £170 million to new and enhanced rural bus services. Moreover, we have recommitted to that for the next three years. No fewer than 1,845 new and refurbished bus services have been secured for our rural areas. That commitment to the countryside was never contemplated by Conservative Members, but it has been broadly welcomed in the countryside.
The Government's target now is to ensure that, in the next five years, the great majority of parishes in England and Wales will have bus services within a six-minute walk. That is a real commitment to the countryside and to serious levels of public transport provision in the countryside. However, I should return to my main theme.
If the only possible use of the revenue from a licensing scheme is to offset business rates, where does it leave individual motorists? Their employers will still have a clear incentive to reduce their parking provision, and perhaps to prevent them from parking at work. If the Opposition's proposals were accepted, however, there would be no new money for transport improvements in and around the scheme's area, and many motorists might be caught in the dilemma of having no alternative to driving. The Government's aim is not to force people off the roads, but to give them real choices where none may currently exist. Giving people that choice is essential to tackling congestion.
We are fully aware of business's concerns about costs and competitiveness. None the less, we have to remember that congestion itself imposes on the UK economy a huge and growing cost—which the Confederation of British Industry estimates is more than £20 billion per annum. New powers to tackle congestion are essential. We place great importance on the need for licensing schemes to work with the grain of business. The Secretary of State will not approve licensing schemes that are designed only to raise revenue. It would not be acceptable simply to place additional burdens on business. Each scheme must demonstrate that it will have a direct impact on congestion before it is approved.
I cannot accept that, at the outset, offsetting business rates should be the only use of licensing scheme revenues, when our first priority must clearly be to address the years of inadequate transport funding by the previous Administration. In those circumstances, I very much hope that the hon. Member for Poole is willing to withdraw the motion and the new clause.

Mr. Syms: The workplace parking levy is a tax that will particularly hit large employers and inner-city and deprived areas. We shall press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 371.

Division No. 190]
[6.25 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Heald, Oliver


Amess, David
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Baldry, Tony
Hunter, Andrew


Beggs, Roy
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Bercow, John
Jenkin, Bernard


Beresford, Sir Paul
Key, Robert


Body, Sir Richard
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Boswell, Tim
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lansley, Andrew


Brady, Graham
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brazier, Julian
Lidington, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Luff, Peter


Burns, Simon
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Butterfill, John
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Cash, William
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clappison, James
Madel, Sir David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Major, Rt Hon John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Malins, Humfrey



Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Collins, Tim
May, Mrs Theresa


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Moss, Malcolm


Cran, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Norman, Archie


Duncan Smith, Iain
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Page, Richard


Faber, David
Paice, James


Fabricant, Michael
Paterson, Owen


Fallon, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Flight, Howard
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Prior, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Randall, John


Fox, Dr Liam
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fraser, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Garnier, Edward
Robertson, Laurence


Gibb, Nick
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gill, Christopher
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Ruffley, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
St Aubyn, Nick


Gray, James
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Green, Damian
Shepherd, Richard


Greenway, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hague, Rt Hon William
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Spring, Richard


Hammond, Philip
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hawkins, Nick
Steen, Anthony


Hayes, John
Streeter, Gary





Swayne, Desmond
Wells, Bowen


Syms, Robert
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Willetts, David


Townend John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Townend, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Tredinnick, David
Yeo, Tim


Trend, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tyrie, Andrew


Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walter, Robert
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. Stephen Day.



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clapham, Michael


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Alexander, Douglas


Allan, Richard
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clwyd, Ann


Ashton, Joe
Coaker, Vernon


Austin, John
Coffey, Ms Ann


Baker, Norman
Coleman, Iain


Ballard, Jackie
Colman, Tony


Barnes, Harry
Connarty, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Cooper, Yvette


Beard, Nigel
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corston, Jean


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cotter, Brian


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cox, Tom


Bermingham, Gerald
Cranston, Ross


Berry, Roger
Crausby, David


Betts, Clive
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blackman, Liz
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Cummings, John


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Blizzard, Bob


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Borrow, David
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bradshaw, Ben
Davidson, Ian


Brake, Tom
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Breed, Colin
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dawson, Hilton


Browne, Desmond
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Denham, John


Buck, Ms Karen
Dismore, Andrew


Burden, Richard
Dobbin, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Donohoe, Brian H


Burstow, Paul
Doran, Frank


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dowd, Jim


Cable, Dr Vincent
Drew, David


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)



Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ennis, Jeff


Cann, Jamie
Fearn, Ronnie


Caplin, Ivor
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Casale, Roger
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Caton, Martin
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Cawsey, Ian
Flint, Caroline


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Flynn, Paul


Chaytor, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chidgey, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Church, Ms Judith
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)




Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Khabra, Piara S


Fyfe, Maria
Kidney, David


Gapes, Mike
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Gardiner, Barry
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Kirkwood, Archy


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Gibson, Dr Ian
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gidley, Ms Sandra
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Laxton, Bob


Godman, Dr Norman A
Lepper, David


Godsiff, Roger
Leslie, Christopher


Goggins, Paul
Levitt, Tom


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Linton, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Livsey, Richard


Grocott, Bruce
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Grogan, John
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gunnell, John
Love, Andrew


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McAvoy, Thomas


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McCabe, Steve


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Hancock, Mike
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hanson, David
Macdonald, Calum


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McDonnell, John


Harris, Dr Evan
McFall, John


Harvey, Nick
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McIsaac, Shona


Healey, John
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McNamara, Kevin


Hepburn, Stephen
McNulty, Tony


Heppell, John
MacShane, Denis


Hesford, Stephen
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McWilliam, John


Hill, Keith
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hinchliffe, David
Mallaber, Judy


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hoey, Kate
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hood, Jimmy
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Martlew, Eric


Hope, Phil
Maxton, John


Hopkins, Kelvin
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Howells, Dr Kim
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mitchell, Austin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Moffatt, Laura


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hurst, Alan
Moore, Michael


Hutton, John
Moran, Ms Margaret


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Illsley, Eric
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morley, Elliot


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jenkins, Brian


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mountford, Kali


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Mudie, George


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Norris, Dan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Oaten, Mark


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
O'Neill, Martin


Kemp, Fraser
Öpik, Lembit


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Organ, Mrs Diana



Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Palmer, Dr Nick





Pearson, Ian
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pendry, Tom
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pickthall, Colin
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pike, Peter L
Stringer, Graham


Plaskitt, James
Stuart, Ms Gisela



Pollard, Kerry
Stunell, Andrew


Pond, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pound, Stephen


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Primarolo, Dawn
Temple-Morris, Peter


Purchase, Ken
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Quinn, Lawrie
Timms, Stephen


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Tipping, Paddy


Rammell, Bill
Todd, Mark


Rapson, Syd
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Raynsford, Nick
Touhig, Don


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Trickett, Jon


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Truswell, Paul


Rendel, David
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Rowlands, Ted
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Roy, Frank
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruane, Chris
Tyler, Paul


Ruddock, Joan
Tynan, Bill


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Vaz, Keith


Ryan, Ms Joan
Ward, Ms Claire


Salter, Martin
Wareing, Robert N


Sanders, Adrian
Watts, David


Sarwar, Mohammad
Webb, Steve


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Welsh, Andrew


Shipley, Ms Debra
White, Brian


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Singh, Marsha
Wicks, Malcolm


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Willis, Phil


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winnick, David


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wood, Mike


Snape, Peter
Woolas, Phil


Southworth, Ms Helen
Worthington, Tony


Spellar, John
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wyatt, Derek


Steinberg, Gerry


Stevenson, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mr. David Clelland.

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 148

CHARGING SCHEMES: CONSULTATION AND INQUIRIES

Amendments made: No. 214, in page 85, line 45, leave out "to (5)" and insert "and (3)".

No. 215, in page 85, line 46, leave out "and costs".

No. 216, in page 85, line 47, at end insert—
'(7) Where an inquiry is held by virtue of this section in relation to a charging scheme, or the variation or revocation of such a scheme, the costs of the inquiry shall be paid—

(a) in the case of a trunk road charging scheme made by virtue of section 145(2)(b), by the local traffic authority which requested the making of the scheme (or Transport for London, if it did), and
(b) in any other case, by the charging authority or authorities;
and the parties at the inquiry shall bear their own costs.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 150

CHARGING SCHEMES: EXEMPTIONS ETC

Amendment made: No. 217, in page 87, line 1, after "(1)" insert—
'and to section 147(1) and (3)'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 152

EXAMINATION AND REMOVAL OF VEHICLES ETC

Amendments made: No. 218, in page 88, line 16, after "the" insert "motor".

No. 219, in page 88, line 21, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision enabling or requiring charging schemes under this Part to confer power on any person authorised in writing by the charging authority, or any of the charging authorities, to enter a motor vehicle where he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that—

(a) any equipment required to be carried in or fitted to it while it is on a road in respect of which charges are imposed has been interfered with with intent to avoid payment of, or being identified as having failed to pay, a charge imposed by the charging scheme. Or
(b) there is in the motor vehicle a false document which has been made or used with intent to avoid payment of, or being identified as having failed to pay, such a charge.
(2A) A person commits an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person exercising any power conferred on him by a charging scheme under this Part by virtue of subsection (2).
(2B) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2A) is liable on summary conviction to—

(a) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or
(b) imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.
(2C) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision enabling or requiring charging schemes under this Part to confer power on any person authorised in writing by the charging authority, or any of the charging authorities, to seize anything (if necessary by detaching it from a motor vehicle) and detain it as evidence of the commission of an offence under section 151(5) or (6).
(2D) A charging scheme under this Part may not authorise an examination of, or entry into, a motor vehicle unless it is on a road.'.'.

No. 220, in page 88, line 29, at end insert—
'(aa) the fixing of immobilisation notices to motor vehicles to which an immobilisation device has been fitted,'.

No. 221, in page 88, line 33, at end insert—
and
( ) the sale or destruction of motor vehicles not released.
(3A) A person commits an offence if he removes or interferes with an immobilisation notice fixed to a motor vehicle in accordance with provision included in a charging scheme under this Part by virtue of subsection (3) in contravention of such provision.

(3B) A person commits an offence if he removes or attempts to remove an immobilisation device fitted to a motor vehicle in accordance with provision included in a charging scheme under this Part by virtue of subsection (3) in contravention of such provision.

(3C) A person commits an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person exercising any power conferred on him by provision included in a charging scheme under this Part by virtue of subsection (3).

(3D) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3A) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(3E) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3B) or (3C) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'.

No. 222, in page 88, line 34, leave out "and in this subsection" and insert—
'( ) In this section'.

No. 223, in page 88, leave out line 37.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Ordered,

That clause 152 be divided into two Clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (2D) [Examination, entry, search and seizure] and the second of subsections (3) to (4) [Immobilisation etc.].—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 154

TRAFFIC SIGNS

Amendment made: No. 225, in page 89, line 31, leave out—
'the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984'
and insert—
'section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 but also includes signposts and other signs and notices included in that term by section 71(2) of that Act'. [Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 162

LICENSING SCHEMES: CONSULTATION AND INQUIRIES

Amendments made: No. 226, in page 94, line 5, leave out "to (5)" and insert "and (3)".

No. 227, in page 94, line 6, leave out "and costs."

No. 228, in page 94, line 7, at end insert—
'(7) Where an inquiry is held by virtue of this section in relation to a licensing scheme or the variation or revocation of such a scheme—

(a) the costs of the inquiry shall be paid by the licensing authority or authorities, and
(b) the parties at the inquiry shall bear their own costs.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 164

LICENSING SCHEMES: EXEMPTIONS ETC

Amendment made: No. 229, in page 95, line 2, after "(1)" insert—
'and to section 161(1) and (3)'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 167

RIGHTS OF ENTRY

Amendment made: No. 230, in page 96, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert—
'(4) A person commits an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person exercising any power conferred on him by subsection (1) or (2).
(4A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) is'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 171

INFORMATION

Amendment made: No. 231, in page 97, line 18, after "department," insert—
'( ) the National Assembly for Wales,'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 174

PART III: REGULATIONS AND ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 232, in page 99, line 15, at end insert—
'( ) The references in subsections (4) and (5) to regulations made by the Secretary of State include regulations made by him jointly with the National Assembly for Wales.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 11

ROAD USER CHARGING AND WORKPLACE PARKING LEVY: FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 233, in page 187, line 19, leave out from "a" to "the" in line 9 on page 188 and insert—
'relevant scheme and a financial year, means the amount (if any) by which—

(a) the amounts received under or in connection with the scheme which are attributable to the financial year, exceed
(b) the expenses incurred for or in connection with the scheme which are so attributable.

(2) For the purposes of this Schedule—

(a) the amounts received under or in connection with a relevant scheme, and
(b) the expenses incurred for or in connection with a relevant scheme,
and the extent to which they are attributable to any financial year, shall be determined in accordance with regulations made by the appropriate national authority.

(3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2) may, in particular, provide that—

(a) any such costs of constructing, improving or maintaining roads in respect of which charges are imposed by trunk road charging schemes, and any such costs of managing traffic on those roads, as are specified by or determined in accordance with the regulations, or
(b) any such payments made for or in respect of the construction, improvement or maintenance of those roads, or the management of traffic on them, as are so specified or determined,
are to be regarded, to the extent so specified or determined, as expenses incurred for or in connection with the trunk road charging schemes.

(4) Where a trunk road charging scheme is made by virtue of section 145(2)(b), the relevant authority and the local traffic authority which requested the making of the scheme (or Transport for London, if it did) may agree that—



(a) the expenses incurred for or in connection with the trunk road charging scheme shall be taken to include specified expenses incurred for or in connection with the charging scheme in connection with which the trunk road charging scheme was requested, and
(b) the expenses incurred for or in connection with that other charging scheme shall be taken to include specified expenses incurred for or in connection with'.

No. 234, in page 188, line 31, leave out from beginning to "be" in line 42 and insert—
'5. Regulations made by the appropriate national authority may make provision for—

(a) the keeping of accounts relating to trunk road charging schemes, and
(b) the preparation and publication of statements of such accounts.

6.—(1) An account relating to a relevant scheme which is not a trunk road charging scheme shall be kept for each financial year by the relevant authority or jointly by the relevant authorities.

(2) A statement of every such account shall be prepared for each financial year by the relevant authority or authorities and published in the annual accounts of the relevant authority, or of each of the relevant authorities, for the financial year.

(3) Regulations made by the appropriate national authority may make—

(a) further provision relating to accounts required to be kept under this paragraph (including provision requiring or allowing the keeping of consolidated accounts relating to more than one relevant scheme), and
(b) further provision relating to the preparation and publication of statements of such accounts.

6A. At the end of each financial year any deficit in an account required to be kept under paragraph 6 shall'.

No. 235, in page 191, line 42, leave out sub-paragraph (6).—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 12

AMENDMENTS OF SCHEDULES 23 AND 24 TO GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY ACT

Amendments made: No. 236, in page 192, line 7, after "(1)," insert—
'in the definition of "net proceeds", for the words from ", means" to the end substitute "and a financial year, means the amount (if any) by which—

(a) the amounts received under or in connection with the scheme which are attributable to the financial year, exceed
(b) the expenses incurred for or in connection with the scheme which are so attributable;".

(3) In that sub-paragraph,'.

No. 237, in page 192, line 14, at end insert—

'( ) In that sub-paragraph, in the definition of "traffic sign", for "same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (see in particular section 64 of that Act)" substitute "meaning given by section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 but also includes signposts and other signs and notices included in that term by section 71(2) of that Act".'.

No. 238, in page 192, line 14, at end insert—

'( ) For sub-paragraph (2) substitute—
(2) For the purposes of this Schedule—

(a) the amounts received under or in connection with a charging scheme, and
(b) the expenses incurred for or in connection with such a scheme,

and the extent to which they are attributable to any financial year, shall be determined in accordance with regulations under this sub-paragraph.".'.

No. 239, in page 192, line 24, leave out "to (5)" and insert "and (3)".

No. 240, in page 192, line 25, leave out "and costs".

No. 241, in page 192, line 26, at end insert—

'(4A) Where an inquiry is held by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(b) above for the purposes of any order containing a charging scheme—

(a) the costs of the inquiry shall be paid by the charging authority; and
(b) the parties at the inquiry shall bear their own costs.'.

No. 242, in page 192, line 27, leave out—
'An authority by whom a charging order'
and insert "The charging authority".

No. 243, in page 192, line 30, leave out "order" and insert "charging scheme".

No. 244, in page 192, line 31, leave out "After paragraph 11" and insert—

'In sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 (exemptions, reduced rates etc.), after "above" insert "and to paragraphs 4 and 6 above".

4A. After that paragraph'.

No. 245, in page 193, line 11, leave out—

'In paragraph 15(5)(b) (dealing with surpluses)'
and insert—

'(1) Paragraph 15 (accounts and funds) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), for "of their income and expenditure in respect of substitute "relating to".

(3) In sub-paragraph (3)—

(a) for the words from the beginning to "each" substitute "Each", and
(b) for "that year" substitute "each financial year".

(4) After that sub-paragraph insert—
(4A) Regulations may make—

(a) further provision relating to accounts required to be kept under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above (including provision requiring or allowing the keeping of consolidated accounts relating to more than one charging scheme); and
(b) further provision relating to the preparation and publication of statements of such accounts."

(5) In sub-paragraph (5)(b)'.

No. 246, in page 193, line 33, at end insert—

'—(1) Paragraph 26 (examination of motor vehicles etc.) is amended as follows.

(2) For sub-paragraph (2) substitute—
(2) Regulations may make provision conferring power on any person authorised in writing by the charging authority to enter a motor vehicle where he has reasonable grounds for suspecting, in relation to a motor vehicle which is on a road, that—

(a) any equipment required to be carried in or fitted to the motor vehicle while it is on a road in respect of which charges are imposed has been interfered with with intent to avoid payment of, or being identified as having failed to pay, a charge imposed by the charging scheme; or
(b) there is in the motor vehicle a false document which has been made or used with intent to avoid payment of, or being identified as having failed to pay, such a charge."

(3) After that sub-paragraph insert—
(3) A person who intentionally obstructs a person exercising any power conferred on him by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above is guilty of an offence.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (3) above shall be liable on summary conviction to—

(a) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or
(b) imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.

(5) Regulations may make provision conferring power on any person authorised in writing by the charging authority to seize anything (if necessary by detaching it from a motor vehicle) and detain it as evidence of the commission of an offence under paragraph 25 above."

.—(1) Paragraph 27 (removal or immobilisation of motor vehicles) shall be renumbered as sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph and amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph (a) insert—
(aa) the fixing of immobilisation notices to motor vehicles to which an immobilisation device has been fitted;".

(3) Insert at the end "and
(e) the sale or destruction of motor vehicles not released.

(2) A person who removes or interferes with an immobilisation notice in contravention of provision made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above is guilty of an offence.

(3) A person who removes or attempts to remove an immobilisation device fixed to a motor vehicle in accordance with provision made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above in contravention of such provision is guilty of an offence.

(4) A person who intentionally obstructs a person exercising any power conferred on him by provision made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above is guilty of an offence.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (2) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (3) or (4) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.".'.

No. 247, in page 194, line 37, at end insert—

'( ) In that sub-paragraph, in the definition of "net proceeds", for the words from ", means" to the end substitute "and a financial year, means the amount (if any) by which—

(a) the amounts received under or in connection with the scheme which are attributable to the financial year, exceed
(b) the expenses incurred for or in connection with the scheme which are so attributable;".'.

No. 248, in page 194, line 40, at end insert—

'( ) For sub-paragraph (2) substitute—
(2) For the purposes of this Schedule—

(a) the amounts received under or in connection with a licensing scheme, and
(b) the expenses incurred for or in connection with such a scheme,
and the extent to which they are attributable to any financial year, shall be determined in accordance with regulations under this sub-paragraph.".'.

No. 249, in page 195, line 10, leave out "to (5)" and insert "and (3)".

No. 250, in page 195, line 11, leave out "and costs".

No. 251, in page 195, line 12, leave out "(3)" and insert "(3)(b)".

No. 252, in page 195, line 12, at end insert—
'(5) Where an inquiry is held by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(b) above for the purposes of any order containing a licensing scheme—

(a) the costs of the inquiry shall be paid by the licensing authority; and
(b) the parties at the inquiry shall bear their own costs.'.

No. 253, in page 195, line 22, at end insert—

'In paragraph 17(3) and (4) (exemptions, reduced rates etc.), after "(2) above" insert "and to paragraphs 7 and 9 above".'.

No. 254, in page 195, line 37, leave out—
'In paragraph 21(5)(b) (dealing with surpluses)'
and insert—

'(1) Paragraph 21 (accounts and funds) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), for "of their income and expenditure in respect of substitute "relating to".

(3) In sub-paragraph (3)—

(a) for the words from the beginning to "each" substitute "Each", and
(b) for "that year" substitute "each financial year".

(4) After that sub-paragraph insert—
(4A) Regulations may make further provision relating to—

(a) accounts required to be kept under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) (including provision requiring or allowing the keeping of consolidated accounts relating to more than one licensing scheme), and
(b) the preparation and publication of statements of such accounts."

(5) In sub-paragraph (5)(b)'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 182

PURPOSES

Mr. Michael Moore: I beg to move amendment No. 420, in page 102, line 23, at end insert—
'(d) to identify unmet needs for railway services;
(e) to expand the railway network where appropriate.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 410, in clause 183, page 102, line 26, at end insert—
'( ) the Secretary of State,'.
No. 408, in page 102, line 33, leave out "directions and".
No. 409, in page 102, line 34, leave out from "strategies" to end of line 38 and insert "of a general nature".
No. 459, in clause 184, page 103, line 19, leave out "and".
No. 460, in page 103, line 21, at end insert—
'and
(g) to facilitate the implementation of local transport plans provided for in section 92 of this Act.'.
No. 419, in clause 195, page 111, leave out line 39 and insert—
( ) 'Provided that before disposing of any land the Authority shall, in consultation with the local transport authority and other interested parties, consider what potential for rail or other sustainable transport related use such land might offer, and protect the land accordingly.'.


No. 413, in clause 201, page 118, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 23.

Mr. Moore: The Minister had some problems with my constituency in Committee, so I remind him that it is Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale.
The amendment would extend the purposes of the Strategic Rail Authority. We are concerned that the Bill does not tackle the problems, mainly affecting rural areas, relating to the expansion of the network under the new regime. We are all aware of the substantial new investment already going into the rail sector and planned for the future. Railtrack recently published its latest network management statement. Over 12 months it has doubled its estimate of the investment to be made in the rail network in the next decade, although the latest list looked more like a wish list and a response to public concerns than a deliberate plan of investment. I am sure that we shall return to that issue in the coming months. Clearly, substantial investment is planned, and we hope that it will be delivered.
The new Strategic Rail Authority planned under the legislation has a crucial role to play in providing a focus for the development of the network and guiding where much of the investment will be made. Those of us who represent rural constituencies understand that many of the great projects connecting the large urban centres will grab the most attention and will require the most significant investment, but we believe that there is a requirement for a statutory duty to be placed on the Strategic Rail Authority to ensure that other parts of the country, particularly where demand for additional rail services has not been met, should be well served.
There are many campaigning groups throughout the country, each with the cherished hope of reopening lines. Reopening lines has become a new industry, in welcome contrast to the pattern of events over the past 30 years or more. There are many examples of groups seeking to reopen important links to particular communities. The proposed Matlock to Buxton line is the subject of a major study. Similarly, hon. Members have supported the reopening of the Sudbury to Cambridge line. As I represent part of the Scottish Borders, it behoves me to mention in passing the Waverley line. If my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that he will wax eloquent about the need for that line.
In addition to the campaign groups, various studies are being carried out. DETR is sponsoring one on micro-franchising by the Transport Research and Information Network. That is an exciting idea on which I hope the Minister will be able to update us, as he said in Committee that the report should be produced before too long.

Sir Robert Smith: I welcome the amendment. Will my hon. Friend clarify the fact that it would encourage the Strategic Rail Authority to look at opening up new routes and stations such as Laurencekirk station in my constituency, on the Aberdeen line? A new station would

encourage people to commute to Aberdeen and enable people living south of Aberdeen to access the rail network for inter-city journeys.

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend gives an excellent example of the responsibilities that the Strategic Rail Authority would have under the proposed amendment, not simply in respect of the infrastructure links between towns and villages, but also in relation to stations. Clearly it would be important for the authority to work closely with Railtrack.
Why is there suddenly great demand to reinstate many of the lines that were so cruelly put out of use by the Beeching cuts and other misguided developments during the past 30 years and more? My hon. Friend referred to commuting, but economic development is also an important factor. The provision of an alternative route for freight is increasingly an issue for rural communities, not least following the Government's misguided intention of introducing 44-tonne lorries. Quite separately, there is the growing demand for tourism to be boosted by the development of rural rail services. That is not to be underestimated.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), said in Committee that he had last visited my constituency on the old Waverley line. That rather gave away his age. However, he came as a tourist and we have already invited him back so that he can climb the hills in my part of the country.
Apart from commuting and economic development, there is the additional benefit of social inclusion. Many rural communities and some quite sizeable towns are increasingly isolated from the main networks across the country and therefore do not benefit from economic and social benefits. The Government's agenda is clearly fixed on developing measures to tackle social exclusion. We believe that providing rail links where there is clearly a demand for them would help to deliver the social inclusion agenda.
6.45 pm
Those of us who represent constituencies where there were once railways are well aware of the impact of their closure over many years. We believe that the Strategic Rail Authority should be a catalyst for the regeneration of those areas and must knock heads together to ensure that Railtrack, train operators and others deliver proper services.
I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment, but if he believes that it would not achieve what it sets out to do, I hope that he will be able to tell us what guidance the Strategic Rail Authority will be given to ensure that our objectives are met.
Amendment No. 419, on land sales, seeks to ensure that all rail and sustainable development options are fully considered by all the relevant parties before the Strategic Rail Authority enters into the sales process, and that if it identifies proper rail opportunities, the land concerned will enjoy protection from the Strategic Rail Authority and the Government.
The amendment is necessary because there is concern about the way in which the shadow Strategic Rail Authority has been conducting the land sale process.


In Committee, we had impassioned debates on the subject, highlighting the fact that the Government's intention of developing an integrated transport system with railways at its heart was being undermined by the fact that the shadow Strategic Rail Authority—or the British Railways Board—was continuing to enter into open sales of all its remaining land assets. No preferential terms are offered to local authorities or rail interest groups, nor are they given first refusal.
In Committee, we emphasised in particular the ludicrous situation in Edinburgh, where the Abbeyhill loop—a crucial part of the infrastructure around Waverley station and a key part of the east coast main line, and therefore of strategic importance nationally—despite having been identified by the local authority as a key area for development, had been included in the sales process. The local authority was facing the dreadful prospect of having to divert resources to fund the acquisition of that piece of land. In Committee the Minister was clearly taken aback by that ludicrous situation, and on our last morning he made the significant announcement that there was to be a reprieve for the Abbeyhill loop; it was to be taken out of the sales process and offered exclusively to Railtrack. I hope that in his reply the hon. Gentleman will let us know how the process has developed, and what steps have been taken since that debate to ensure that the sale to Railtrack is properly under way.
The issue of the Abbeyhill loop highlighted the more general fact that a new procedure was needed. The Government could not argue that they wanted to develop their integrated transport structure under the Bill and promote rail as a first choice in that system, while selling off potentially important bits of land to developers, or anyone else who wanted them.
The Minister said that it should not be necessary to raise each case on the Floor of the House to ensure that action is taken. We welcome that, but if the amendment is not accepted, we need to be reassured that the Minister and his Department have done something to ensure that the sales process undertaken by the shadow Strategic Rail Authority is revised, and that the Minister has issued officials with new guidance.
We have been told that no amendment is necessary, and we would like to believe that. However, as we have demonstrated, the sell-off process has undermined many of the assurances that have been uttered publicly at various stages over many months. Transport 2000 wrote to Sir Alastair Morton, the chairman of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority in February, asking him how he saw the sale process as consistent with the need to protect land, as many local authorities are trying to do, under local transport plans. In particular, it asked at what point the land became safeguarded. Is it when it is in a draft plan that is not yet ratified, or only when the local transport plan has been formalised by the Government, which we realise is still many months away?
The Government are sponsoring various studies of ways in which different modes of transport can integrate, and how we can get rid of some of the congestion on our roads, which we have discussed at length this afternoon. It would surely be premature to allow these key strategic assets to be sold off while those studies are being undertaken and before the local transport plans are finalised.
Transport 2000 advised me that the reply from Sir Alastair Morton was bland, which those who know his public persona may find surprising and unlikely. In any event, Transport 2000 gained no greater reassurance from that response.
We need assurances from the Minister this evening that as soon as land is included in local transport plans or identified as falling into that category, it will be safeguarded. We also need to understand how, under the new procedures introduced for the Abbeyhill loop, the Strategic Rail Authority intends to intervene to protect other land across the United Kingdom.
In a report in the Financial Times on 17 April, Juliette Jowit noted that Tom Winsor, the rail regulator, is revising the Railtrack licence and might give himself the power to veto future Railtrack sales of land—an equally important issue. That point has not, as far as I can see, been echoed elsewhere. It was not touched on in Committee. It is relevant to how the Strategic Rail Authority will proceed, and to other points that I have raised. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate what the regulator's role will be in relation to Railtrack, and what the Government's overall vision is for the protection of land held in the public or private sector which may in the future have strategic use.
Integrated transport is the rallying call of the Bill, and we support it wholeheartedly. However, we do not believe that it will become a reality if the tools for integrating transport are stripped away from the relevant authorities before they take their formal powers. That would be a disaster for the vision; it would undermine what the Government want. We hope that in responding to the amendment, the Government will have a change of heart and demonstrate that they recognise that these are serious issues.

Mr. Syms: I shall speak to our amendments Nos. 408, 409 and 410 and to one or two others. One concern that we raised in Committee about the Strategic Rail Authority, which we welcome, is the Secretary of State's ability to interfere in its operation. Clause 179 provides that the Secretary of State will appoint members of the authority. Subsection (4) states:
In making any appointment to membership of the Authority the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of appointing a person who has experience of, and has shown capacity in, some matter relevant to the functions of the Authority.
People with experience that will add value to the authority will be appointed, and that we welcome. Yet clause 183, which sets out the purposes and strategies of the authority in the exercise of its functions, will allow the Secretary of State to interfere.
We believe that the authority should have the confidence of the Secretary of State if it has capable people on it, and the political boss—the Secretary of State—should not have the temptation to interfere in its strategies. Our amendments would allow the Secretary of State to give only guidance of a general nature, rather than interfering with strategic planning. We made that point in Committee and we still feel strongly about it.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to take part in this short debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore). There is nothing twee about Tweeddale—it is full of tweed, not tweeness. That might help the Minister to pronounce the name right eventually.
The veterans of the Standing Committee all look very well, considering the struggles that they had there. The Minister should not allow civil servants and parliamentary draftsmen to tack four separate Bills together and put the resulting Bill through the legislative process. Committee members have done well and been very generous. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has played an active part in considering the Bill in Committee, but parliamentary consideration is very hard when so many different issues are bagged together. The Minister might bear that in mind for the future.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale said. The responsibilities and duties imposed on the Strategic Rail Authority are important. It should, as my hon. Friend said, be an active catalyst in promoting new railways and Railtrack initiatives. Its purpose should be, as much as anything else, to help communities realise their maximum economic potential, as well as considering the technical and commercial aspects of plans.
Our region has a population of 108,000, and there is no railway station anywhere in the region. It cannot be right, in this new century, that people in south-east Scotland are disadvantaged to that extent. There has been a great deal of public support for the idea that the Waverley route should be reopened, and that a rail corridor through the region connecting the city of Edinburgh to the top of the railway network at Carlisle should be reinstated as soon as possible.
A huge psychological blow was inflicted on communities such as Hawick in my constituency 30 years ago when the railway was removed. The Ministers here tonight were obviously not there at the time, except perhaps as tourists on trains going up and down the Waverley route. I remind them that their ministerial predecessors at the time gave assurances about guarantees of additional public transport being made available to make good the losses resulting from the withdrawal of the railway, but those promises were never made good. People feel bitter about that, and remember the ministerial undertakings that were never kept. If the Strategic Rail Authority is not flexible enough to revisit those questions, the ministerial assurances given 30 years ago may never be fulfilled.
7 pm
There is clear evidence that economic stagnation in south-east Scotland resulted directly from the withdrawal of the Waverley line in 1969. Economic growth in the Scottish borders has suffered over the past 30 years. If anyone needs evidence of that, a comparison with what has happened to similar communities within striking distance of Edinburgh, such as Fife or other parts of the central belt, which have kept and maintained rail links with the capital, will show that their growth has been vastly different from that in the borders.
I am particularly concerned about communities such as Hawick, which is suffering real depopulation as a result of dramatic job losses in the knitwear industry. The heart of Hawick was ripped out when the Waverley line was closed.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I fully support all that my hon. Friend is saying. Does he know

that Dr. Beeching axed the whole north-south rail route in Wales—the only one we had—in 1963? In Brecon, 115 people lost their jobs when six lines were closed down. As my hon. Friend says, it is vital that we should take the opportunity to reopen some of those lines, because the economic impact of closure was disastrous, especially in Wales.

Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that the Minister will take a lead from my hon. Friend's helpful intervention by saying what powers are available. If the amendment is not acceptable, the Minister must make clear what we can expect from the SRA.
We have suffered job losses in areas such as Hawick, and there has been an impact on growth industries such as tourism, which are vital to rural parts of the UK. Also important is the ability of sectors such as agriculture to use transport at reasonable cost; the costs of transport in areas such as the highlands and south-east Scotland are high, and rising. It is becoming near impossible to attract any significant inward investment to areas denied access by their poor infrastructure.
The borders of Scotland have suffered greatly—perhaps more so, recently, than other parts of the UK, in terms of development and capital for road and rail infrastructure. I concur entirely with all that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale about social inclusion, sustainability and integrated transport, all of which are essential. Individuals who live in areas such as south-east Scotland should be offered some degree of choice about how they travel. If there is no railway station in the region, choice is impossible.
Finally, the SRA should consider the transport of volume materials, such as timber, by heavy goods vehicles. Timber is a good example, not exclusive to Scotland. I know that Ministers are genuinely trying to promote improvements, but there are real concerns about the volume of timber being extracted from the forests of Wales and Scotland in places where a railway could have a positive impact. A few days ago there was a terrible tragedy at Langholm, in which two people were killed when a lorry spilled its load on to a road. The combination of inadequate roads and bigger lorries causes concern.
The timber industry is under financial pressure, and there is a temptation to do the job in ways that may prejudice safety. The guidelines need to be reconsidered. The Kielder forest has huge timber resources, and the planned southern borders railway would be a positive contribution to dealing with the problems raised. It would also spare small village communities that would otherwise suffer from 44-tonne trucks thundering through day and night, causing both inconvenience and danger.
I appeal to Ministers to accept the amendment. This cannot be simply a technical or financial question. The SRA must have the flexibility to look into the wider issues. If it does, it will be able to promote the development of some of the communities that we represent in ways that will not be possible unless the Bill includes explicit ministerial powers. Our amendment seeks to add those powers, and I support it.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I, too, support amendment No. 420, which would improve the Bill by clarifying the purpose of the Strategic Rail Authority and including a requirement to identify unmet need. I can illustrate that need by the experience in my constituency of the services by Connex SouthCentral.
The Minister will be aware that the latest performance figures rate Connex in category C. In the first national survey of commuters recently, Connex scored poorly on customer satisfaction—just 71 per cent. were satisfied or very satisfied with its services. Only yesterday, the Evening Standard published an analysis of complaints: across the rest of the south of England, complaints fell for the first time since privatisation, but Connex bucked the trend—complaints were up by 31 per cent., which is an appalling record.
From letters from constituents, I know that people feel that the services that they receive are very poor and do not meet their need to travel comfortably in a train that is not like a cattle truck. The Under-Secretary was present at a recent Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), who, with me, highlighted serious defects in current services. Connex is providing a quite rotten service.
The amendment goes to the heart of turning the service round and meeting the needs of my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore)—[Interruption.] I have not had as much coaching in the pronunciation of Tweeddale as have members of the Standing Committee. My hon. Friend discussed long-cherished hopes for the opening up of lines long closed. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has told us of the economic, social and other benefits that would arise. My constituents have a far more modest and less ambitious aim: they simply want Cheam station to be brought up to scratch.
Connex has been promising for years to invest in improving the facilities of Cheam station. Instead, the company has allowed the station to be vandalised, run down and neglected. The station makes people wish not to use the railway. It makes them feel unsafe and insecure. I shall paint a brief picture of the station; it may not have the colour and flamboyance of the Waverley line, but my constituents are concerned about it. The canopies that protect the travelling public if it is raining as they go up to London in the morning are broken. They have been broken for as long as I and many other people can remember. I have written numerous times to Connex, and have extracted promises that work would begin. Promises were made the year before last, and last year, but the work has not started yet.
If the Government cannot accept the amendment, my constituents undoubtedly still have an unmet need—to be able to wait for trains without getting soaking wet at Cheam station. They are receiving a C class service. I hope that the Minister will use his good offices to ensure that Connex honours its long-given promises and to secure the investment that will improve that station. It may not involve the opening of a new line, but it will certainly make a big difference to many of my constituents.

Mr. Raynsford: We have had a short but interesting debate on a matter that is of real concern to many hon. Members—in particular those who represent areas that lack rail services or whose constituents do not have a service of a sufficiently high quality.
I will try to respond to the matters raised and to do justice to the range of amendments. There is a wide range of amendments in this group, some of which would have

a different effect from that moved by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), whose constituency name caused a certain amount of merriment and difficulty in Committee. The civil service, with its incomparable skill in finding a way around such a difficulty, quickly had the hon. Gentleman down as "TEL". I will not draw any conclusions as to whether associations could be made with other people with a similar-sounding acronym.
The hon. Gentleman made a powerful case for action to deal with areas in his constituency—he sensibly and generously extended his comments to cover a wider area—where the absence of rail services has inevitably affected the availability of public transport options for people in need.
This group of amendments reaches the heart of the reasons for the establishment of the SRA and the way in which it will operate. First, the amendments would add specific items to the primary purposes of the authority and to the manner in which it must exercise its functions, as well as requiring it to review its property portfolio. Secondly, they would affect the overall coherent direction of railway policy by removing the Secretary of State's power to direct the authority and the requirement that the rail regulator should facilitate the furtherance by the authority of any strategies that it has formulated with respect to its purposes.
I shall start with amendment No. 420, as it would add to the fundamental purposes of the authority. The amendment raises an important question: the way in which potential unmet future demand for railway services can be met.
The aims of the amendments—to ensure that the authority identifies unmet needs for railway services and can expand the network where appropriate—are aims with which we totally agree. We are setting up a strategic body to plan for the long-term development of the railway network—to fill a gap that was left when the railways were privatised in a way that weakened the strategic overview. We recognise that demand is growing, that the railway needs developing and that the structure is not in place to meet that challenge. We have said that we want railways to take their rightful place at the heart of an integrated transport system. That is why one of the three high-level purposes that are to be part of the mission statement of the SRA, as set out in clause 182(b), is to
secure the development of the railway network.
That is already in the Bill: it is clear and unequivocal. We are keen to secure the development of the railway network.
That purpose includes considering the possible expansion of the network and the need for new lines to meet demand where appropriate. We have taken that purpose seriously and have given the SRA the tools to do the job. The SRA will be a facilitator and promoter of schemes. It will not necessarily take forward schemes itself—often that is the proper job of industry or of local authorities.
We have given the authority the tools that it needs in clause 188. Those powers are deliberately wide so that it can encourage and promote the industry by giving financial assistance or can assist in other ways. Where necessary, the authority can go as far as promoting a Bill in Parliament to facilitate growth, or it can request the rail regulator to direct facility owners to enhance facilities or provide new facilities.
It is that variety of tools, along with the high-level purpose to which I referred, that answers the concerns of Liberal Democrat Members as to how their objectives will be met. Schemes to expand the network to meet need will come from a variety of sources. The authority is in the prime position to encourage and support as appropriate. It will take a view on whether a proposal fits with its strategies for securing the development of the network. If it does, it might be commercially viable in its own right and it can be taken forward without difficulty by the industry. In cases where a proposal is not commercially viable, the SRA will be able to consider whether some direct public support is justified. It will have funds such as the rail passenger partnership fund to help with innovative schemes. It can also look at ways of sharing risk between the public and private sectors, where that might be the necessary precondition for getting a scheme to operate.
7.15 pm
Imaginative proposals to reopen lines are already being produced. I am therefore optimistic that the right structure will be in place when the Bill is enacted to enable the objectives so eloquently set out by those on the Liberal Democrat Benches to be met. I can assure the House that the SRA already covers those aims in its primary purposes and that we have given it the tools to do the job.
Amendments Nos. 459 and 460 would adversely affect the manner in which the SRA carried out its functions, and we do not consider them helpful or appropriate. We made it clear in Committee that we expect the SRA to facilitate and lead consultation with local and regional government. The SRA's strategies will promote rail use within an integrated transport system. Consistent with that national framework, the SRA will take account of the views of local and regional bodies. That will involve extensive consultation to identify the opportunities for rail.
We expect decisions about services to be taken in the light of local transport plans. However, the process needs to be a two-way process so that local plans are consistent with the national framework. That is why it is preferable to deal with the relationship in our guidance on local transport plans and in directions and guidance to the SRA, rather than on the face of the Bill. There are a great many policies and plans that the SRA will need to consider and it would be inflexible to specify them all in the Bill. Such a course would also fall foul of a problem that we frequently identified in Committee, to which we referred in shorthand as the "list" problem: if one identifies certain problems but fails to identify others, it is possible to infer that they have not been treated equally seriously.
The shadow SRA is starting to receive local transport plans and to assess them. It will consider all LTPs now that the new regime is in place. I hope that that answers the concerns of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who asked in Committee whether transport plans are being viewed by the shadow SRA. This will be part of a continuing process, as will communication of the shadow SRA strategy to local authorities.
Before I deal with the underlying purpose of amendment No. 419, I should explain to the House that it may be based on a misunderstanding of clause 195. That clause concerns non-operational land that the SRA will inherit from the British Railways Board. By definition,

subsection (2) of the clause relates only to land that the SRA does not need for the discharge of its other functions; that means, for example, land that has no prospect of future railway use. There is no need for the amendment because "land" under clause 195(2) cannot be land with potential rail use. If the land does have the prospect of future railway use, the Bill means that it is dealt with in accordance with the SRA's overall purposes, strategies and functions. That in itself is an important safeguard.
If the land does not have a railway use, the Secretary of State can direct the SRA about the way in which the land is to be disposed of. Such a direction could require the SRA to dispose of the land for alternative transport purposes. Cases can also be considered individually by the SRA on their merits.
Setting aside the technical aspects of the amendment, I recognise that the land issues continue to attract attention and concern, and to generate campaigns locally and nationally. The shadow SRA's property review, completed in September 1999, identified some 1,400 sites, of which only 200 were considered to have any transport potential. The remaining properties are small, disparate sites, or sites with development problems of poor access or land contamination. Many are remote from the operational railway.
Since the lifting of the suspension of land sales imposed during the review, the British Railways Board—as part of the shadow SRA—has initiated the first phase of sales, affecting some 600 sites, which will be undertaken under the new marketing process which gives priority to transport uses.
As the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) said in Committee, we cannot simply say that all former railway land should be put to one side. We have to reach decisions on a sensible basis, taking into account whether there is a realistic prospect of rail use in the foreseeable future. That is why the marketing process strikes a balance between disposing of surplus land and ensuring that sites for future transport use are identified.
I repeat to the House the assurance that my hon. Friend gave the Committee: the SRA will not take a short-term view. The creation of the shadow SRA, consisting of BRB and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising working closely together, means that land decisions by the BRB can be taken in the context of the shadow SRA's strategic considerations. That is a significant improvement. For example, it means that the BRB is not proceeding with the sale of any sites on the proposed east-west route from Cambridge to Oxford until a decision is taken on that important new rail scheme—or, rather, old closed rail scheme which may become a new rail scheme. The BRB will also think very carefully about any strategic freight sites. It will not rush to sell sites with potential for rail freight ahead of other sites in its portfolio, except where there is already a clear demand for them. That demonstrates that we are not repeating past mistakes by acting rashly and ordering BRB to sell off all land as quickly as possible.
We look to Railtrack and the industry to identify and acquire sites with transport potential. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham made it clear in Committee that the current sales process is not inexorable; it can and will be halted where there is strong justification for doing so. If sites with rail potential are not acquired by the rail


industry or local authorities, the shadow SRA will consider whether they should be retained for strategic use. That will involve some careful choices if we are to avoid the problems of blight and lost development opportunities that would otherwise arise if too much land were sterilised in that way. I hope that the commitments given in Committee, which I have repeated today, provide reassurance.
The second theme of the group of amendments is to question the way in which we can ensure that overall control and development of the railways pulls in the same direction.
Amendment No. 413 would amend clause 201, which itself amends section 4 of the Railways Act 1993. That sets the general duties of the Rail Regulator—and the Secretary of State—to reflect the changes that we are making in the railway industry. One way in which it does so is to ensure that the Rail Regulator and the authority work on the same broad strategic goals.
The amendment, tabled by Conservative Members, relates to the new duty that we have placed on the Rail Regulator, requiring him to facilitate the furtherance by the authority of its strategies. Let me make this absolutely clear: the Rail Regulator remains independent. It is still for the regulator to balance his various duties and objectives and take decisions that are in the best interests of the railway and its users. However, we need to ensure that, while taking account of these different functions, we align the Rail Regulator's duties as closely as possible with the authority's, so that they are moving in the same direction rather than working against each other.
The strategies that the authority will develop are fundamental to the future of the railway, and will be a vital consideration for the regulator when taking decisions relating to his own functions. It makes no sense to require the authority to formulate strategies if the regulator is free to ignore them. The provision is to preserve the balancing act that the regulator must maintain in carrying out his section 4 duties, and it defines one of the most important relationships between the regulator and the SRA.
Amendments Nos. 410, 408 and 409 are rather different. They seek to reduce substantially the power of the Secretary of State to direct the SRA and to give him instead the role simply of giving guidance and of a consultee. I, for one, do not consider that that is sufficient. Whatever their views on the specific policy, the people of this country are rightly concerned and vocal about transport policy. They expect their elected Government to take transport seriously, which we have done and will continue to do. To do so, we need to retain overall direction of railways policy, which these amendments would take away from us.
The SRA will be at the heart of the future direction and development of the railway network, and its strategies will provide the route map for the future. That is why we have, and need, these powers. The Secretary of State will be accountable to the House for the SRA as well as for its wider policies. To be accountable, he must have some control over the SRA that goes further than guidance or consultation.
It may reassure—or possibly discomfit—the hon. Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) if I remind them that the powers that they seek to do away with are not new, and are indeed well precedented.

Mr. Syms: indicated assent.

Mr. Raynsford: They occur, as the hon. Member for Poole rightly recognises, in the Railways Act 1993, which was so often referred to in our Committee proceedings, and with which both hon. Gentlemen will be very familiar. The Secretary of State currently gives objectives, instructions and guidance to the franchising director under the powers contained in the 1993 Act. By contrast, the prime objectives of the Strategic Rail Authority are on the face of the Bill, while the direction and guidance power available to the Secretary of State is equivalent to that in the 1993 legislation. I hope, therefore, that Conservative Members will recognise that their amendments are not appropriate and should be withdrawn.
In conclusion, I shall briefly refer to the specific points raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale raised several issues. He specifically asked when we could expect to see the micro-franchising report. The answer is that it is due in June. I hope that that is a more specific response than that which the hon. Gentleman received in Committee: it is compatible with that response but more specific. We see no objection in principle to decentralised operation, which is, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, known as micro-franchising, but the shadow SRA will want to study the report and analyse the pros and cons of these options in detail.
The hon. Gentleman also asked how guidance to the SRA would be given to achieve the objectives of his amendments. There is no need to give guidance to secure the development of the network because, as I have said, that is already one of the three overarching objectives specified in the primary legislation.
The hon. Gentleman wanted to know the position in relation to land when local transport plans were outstanding. The rigorous process of consultation that we shall put in place will ensure that land with rail potential is identified. As I have explained, there will be no question of land with rail potential being disposed of. There is therefore no need to wait for local transport plans before decisions are taken.
The hon. Gentleman wanted to know the specific position in relation to Railtrack and the rail regulator protecting land disposal. I can confirm that the regulator is considering a new licence condition which, subject to consultation, would impose on Railtrack controls on the disposal of relevant assets, including land. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel comforted by that.
The hon. Member for Poole, in an admirably short speech, simply expressed concern about the role of the Secretary of State. I hope that I have made it clear that the Secretary of State has an important role, as he is responsible for the overall operation of railway policy and transport policy and is answerable to the House. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman approved of the terms of clause 179(4), under which the Secretary of State must appoint people with considerable qualifications to positions in the Strategic Rail Authority.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) started unhelpfully by complaining about the structure of the Bill. He said that it was four Bills in one. He obviously had not listened closely to his colleague the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, who completed his speech by congratulating the


Government on their objective of integration. Our proposals are a classic illustration of integration, so I cannot accept the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire.
7.30 pm
I listened with concern and interest to the comments made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire about the problems created by the shortage and the inadequacy of the transport services in the area that he represents. I spent a few days in the vicinity of Kielder forest recently and I can entirely endorse his comments about the problems caused by large timber-carrying trucks on a road network that was simply not designed to cope with such pressures. I am equally aware that the local rail service closed in the 1960s. That was a sad loss to the area, in the same way as the loss of railways is a sad loss to other areas.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the opportunities that would encourage the carrying of timber by rail. We are keen to encourage rail freight when that is possible and when it is good value. The shadow SRA is working on the freight element of its strategy, covering vital issues of capacity, demand and investment. The details are still being developed, but the overall objective is more freight by rail. The SRA will bring together freight and strategic planning for the first time; we will make progress in that direction.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) when he talks about the poor standard of service provided by the train operator, Connex SouthCentral, in his territory. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham has similar experience of Connex SouthCentral, and Connex SouthEastern operates in my constituency, so I am not unaware of the complaints that are made by many constituents. I can only say in encouragement to the hon. Gentleman that the protests, which I was happy to convey to Connex, of many of my constituents—they used to get wet when they waited at Woolwich Arsenal station because of the inadequacy of the platform cover—have at last led to action being taken. I wish him well in his campaign to achieve similar results for his constituents who use Cheam station.
I hope that I have done justice to the points made in the debate and explained why the amendments are either unnecessary or undesirable. I urge the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Moore: I am afraid that, despite the Minister's mastery of my constituency name, I shall have to disappoint him. He was untypically churlish in attacking my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for his views on the Bill. The view has been expressed—not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—that the staples it contains are the only things integrating the Bill before us. It is a mammoth effort and we shall return to the points behind it on Third Reading.
We are unconvinced by the Minister's arguments about land sales and particularly about those on rural—

It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [9 May], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 321.

Division No. 191]
[7.33 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Baker, Norman
Kirkwood, Archy


Ballard, Jackie
Livsey, Richard


Beggs, Roy
Llwyd, Elfyn


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Brand Dr Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Breed Colin
Moore, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Burstow, Paul
Oaten, Mark


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Öpik, Lembit



Rendel, David



Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Cotter, Brian
Sanders, Adrian



Smyth, Rev Martin Belfast S)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Stunell, Andrew



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Thompson, William


Fearn, Ronnie
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Foster, Don (Bath)
Tyler, Paul


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Webb, Steve


Hancock, Mike
Willis, Phil


Harris, Dr Evan


Harvey, Nick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Sir Robert Smith and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mr. Tom Brake.



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Caton, Martin


Ainger, Nick
Cawsey, Ian


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Alexander, Douglas
Chaytor, David


Allen, Graham
Church, Ms Judith


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clapham, Michael


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Atkins, Charlotte


Austin, John
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Beard, Nigel
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clwyd, Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Coaker, Vernon


Berry, Roger
Coffey, Ms Ann


Betts, Clive
Coleman, lain


Blackman, Liz
Colman, Tony


Blears, Ms Hazel
Connarty, Michael


Blizzard, Bob
Cooper, Yvette


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Corbett, Robin


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Corbyn, Jeremy


Borrow, David
Corston, Jean


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cousins, Jim


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cox, Tom


Bradshaw, Ben
Cranston, Ross


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Crausby, David


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Cryer, John (Keighley)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Browne, Desmond
Cummings, John


Buck, Ms Karen
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Burden, Richard


Burgon, Colin
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dalyell, Tam


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Cann, Jamie
Davidson, Ian


Casale, Roger
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)





Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Denham, John
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dobbin, Jim
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Donohoe, Brian H
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dowd, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Drew, David
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kemp, Fraser


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Khabra, Piara S


Edwards, Huw
Kidney, David


Ennis, Jeff
Kilfoyle, Peter


Field Rt Hon Frank
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fisher, Mark
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Ladyman, Dr Stephen



Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Laxton, Bob


Flint, Caroline
Lepper, David


Flynn, Paul
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Fyfe, Maria
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Gapes, Mike
Linton, Martin


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lock, David


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Love, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
McAvoy, Thomas


Godsiff, Roger
McCabe, Steve


Goggins, Paul
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McFall, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Grocott, Bruce
McIsaac, Shona


Grogan, John
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gunnell, John
McNamara, Kevin


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
MacShane, Denis


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McWilliam, John


Hanson, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mallaber, Judy


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Healey, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hepburn, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Heppell, John
Maxton, John


Hesford, Stephen
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hill Keith
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hinchliffe, David
Mitchell, Austin


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moffatt Laura


Hoey, Kate
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hope, Phil
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morley, Elliot


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Howells, Dr Kim
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hoyle, Lindsay


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mudie, George


Hurst, Alan
Mullin, Chris


Hutton, John
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Norris, Dan


Jenkins, Brian
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)




O'Hara, Eddie
Stevenson, George


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pearson, Ian
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pendry, Tom
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pickthall, Colin
Stringer, Graham


Pike, Peter L
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Plaskitt, James
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pollard, Kerry
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pond, Chris


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pound, Stephen
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Primarolo, Dawn
Timms, Stephen


Purchase, Ken
Tipping, Paddy


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Todd, Mark


Quinn, Lawrie
Touhig, Don


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Trickett, Jon


Rammell, Bill
Truswell, Paul


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Raynsford, Nick
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Tynan, Bill


Rooney, Terry
Vaz, Keith


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Ward, Ms Claire


Rowlands, Ted
Wareing, Robert N


Roy, Frank
Watts, David


Ruane, Chris
White, Brian


Ryan, Ms Joan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Salter, Martin
Wicks, Malcolm


Sarwar, Mohammad
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Shipley, Ms Debra


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Singh, Marsha
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Winnick, David


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Snape, Peter
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wyatt, Derek


Spellar, John


Squire, Ms Rachel
Tellers for the Noes:


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mr. David Jamieson and


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. David Clelland.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 200

REGULATOR'S POWER TO REQUIRE PROVISION ETC. OF RAILWAY FACILITIES.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 412, in page 113, line 4, leave out clause 200.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 414, in clause 201, page 119, line 7, leave out "him" and insert "the Authority".
No. 415, in page 119, line 8, leave out from "State" to end of line 15.
No. 416, in clause 202, page 119, line 24, leave out "is reasonable" and insert—
'shall be commensurate with the contravention and with the turnover and profitability of the relevant operator provided that the appropriate authority is satisfied that such an imposition will help fulfil the general duties set out in section 4 of this Act.'.
No. 417, in page 127, line 1, leave out Clause 208.

Mr. Jenkin: I am pleased that we have an opportunity to discuss one of the most important clauses in the railway part of the Bill. What was the Railways Bill until it was included in the Transport Bill in the previous Session has been characterised as potential renationalisation by the back door. In deference to the swoons of the Under-Secretary who has tilted his head back and cast his eyes heavenwards in a manner reminiscent of a pantomime dame suffering from a hot flush, I acknowledge that he has addressed a principal concern about franchising and the possibility of the Strategic Rail Authority taking over and running rail franchises, making clear that those powers are to be used as a last resort. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Bill clarifies the matter.
Clause 200—which was clause 17 in the Railways Bill and clause 198 in the Transport Bill before it was amended in Committee—entitled "Directions to provide etc. railway facilities", provides for an entirely new power. The regulator, following an application by the SRA, is empowered to direct a facility owner of an existing railway facility to provide a new railway facility, or improve or develop the existing one. The regulator carries out the SRA's direction.
There is no analogous power in the existing railway set-up. In principle, we do not object to the existence of the Strategic Railway Authority, but we have a fundamental objection to it having such powers, which are an expression of the Secretary of State's immature and socialist desire to interfere with the running of the industry and to play trains. It should not be necessary to have such a power over a sophisticated industry.
It would have been absurd if, for example, following the privatisation of British Airways, the Civil Aviation Authority had maintained a power, supervised by the Secretary of State, to direct it to provide certain services or purchase certain facilities. There is no such power over BAA plc. The Minister has frequently retreated to the original Railways Act 1993, but it contains no such power, even in relation to its implementation.

Mr. Raynsford: That led to problems.

Mr. Jenkin: The Minister says that that led to problems. Certainly there are problems to be solved in relation to the railways. I hope that the Minister is prepared to debate whether direct intervention by the SRA, as envisaged in clause 200, or indirect intervention by the Secretary of State through his influence over the SRA, will help to solve those problems.
This would be a substantial change. It is worth pointing out that the power is constrained. It is surprising that only the SRA can apply to the regulator for provision, improvement or development directions under the clause.

The regulator must take into account the effect on the SRA's budget, so its views will be of considerable importance.
The clause puts significantly more power into the hands of the SRA than previously, and has the potential to undermine the original arrangements in clause 17 of the Railways Act 1993. That creates the danger of an investment bottleneck, as was said by a leading firm of railway solicitors.

Mr. Raynsford: Sue, Grabbit and Run.

Mr. Jenkin: I accept that the Minister for Housing and Planning is a little light-hearted as we reach the end of our consideration of a marathon Bill, which is accompanied by a telephone directory of Government amendments and new clauses. However, we are talking about the firm of Denton Hall.
Denton Hall is the firm of solicitors from which the much celebrated rail regulator, Mr. Tom Winsor, came. I hope that that leading firm of railway solicitors, which spawned the rail regulator, who is now such a champion of the Secretary of State's policies, will not be dismissed too lightly. The firm describes the clause as
an investment bottleneck…operators will not be able to bring forward their own investment schemes without obtaining the SRA's approval at the outset.
Why that is so deserves some explanation. The clause states:
The Regulator may, on application—

(a) made by the Authority, or
(b) made by any other person with the consent of the Authority,
give to a person who has an estate or interest in, or right over, an existing railway facility a direction to improve or develop the railway facility.
It is a huge power to be able to tell, for example, Railtrack, to spend or invest real cash. That might be desirable; indeed, I remember that, according to the Secretary of State, that was one of the Bill's great selling points. The right hon. Gentleman advertised the Bill as a way in which to force Railtrack to invest. That is one of the contributory factors that have directly undermined Railtrack's ability to invest. If it becomes the regulator's ability to compel Railtrack to invest shareholders' funds in projects that will not produce a commensurate return, shareholders will naturally think that the company is not worth investing in.
I am sure that the Minister is getting ready to tell me that there is a qualification—an obligation—on the regulator. I shall not go into too much detail because the clause is lengthy. If the railway facility provider—supposedly Railtrack—can demonstrate that it cannot earn a sufficient return from the investment, the rail regulator and the SRA cannot force the company so to invest. So, we face a curious situation: the clause compels Railtrack or any other railway facility provider to invest, but if it is not worth investing in that facility, compulsion becomes invalid.
One might ask why any company would not wish to invest in something from which it will earn a worthwhile return. The rates of return are set by the rail regulator in any case, so unless there is a falling out between Railtrack and the regulator—we hope that that falling out is being resolved, although the process is extremely lengthy; I


suggest that the Government bear some responsibility for that—or the company is perverse, it would want to invest in facilities that provide a return.
The power in the clause will not increase the amount of investment that will be made. The result will be that Railtrack and every railway facility provider will want to check with the SRA whether the project is one in which the SRA would want it to invest. That is why the clause constitutes an investment bottleneck.
In voting on the amendment, the House is offered the choice between a railway that is free to make investment decisions, which business people think will best satisfy customers and provide a return for shareholders, and a railway that is constrained and corralled by a successor state bureaucracy to the British Railways Board, which so constrained the development of the railway over 45 years of nationalisation.
Let us reflect on what happened before privatisation and what has happened since. Before privatisation, there was a relentless decline in the number of passengers carried on the railway. Since privatisation, there has been an explosion of marketing, innovation and investment and a huge increase in the number of passengers, which we are the first to accept creates its own problems. This Government are the first to celebrate the 1,000 extra daily services on the railway since they came to power, yet those extra services are as a result of releasing the railway from precisely such restriction and interference. The Government are in danger of again placing the railway under such constraints, which will finish up starving it of investment by driving away investors who do not have the patience or confidence to wait for the bureaucrats to make up their minds.
Let me hasten to add that I am not making any personal criticism of the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority. However, his role should be much more that of a facilitator and a catalyst. There is a place for such a role in the industry if the Secretary of State and Ministers cannot themselves fulfil it, but to hand over such broad powers is a mistake and one reason why we fundamentally oppose the Bill's railway provisions.
I shall briefly refer also to amendments Nos. 414 to 417. Amendments Nos. 414 and 415 amend provisions in clause 201 on the objectives of the regulator and the Secretary of State. I am looking for amendment No. 417, and I cannot find it, but if I am not mistaken it deletes subsection(2)(b)—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am on the wrong track. We could well have desired to delete that part of the clause, but I will not go into further detail because I would not be in order. I shall turn to amendment No. 417 in a minute.
Amendments Nos. 414 and 415 relate to the guidance that the Secretary of State gives to the rail regulator. Section 4(5) of the Railways Act 1993, which set up the office of the rail regulator, states:
The Regulator shall also be under a duty in exercising the functions assigned or transferred to him under this Part—
(a) until 3Ist December 1996, to take into account any guidance given to him from time to time by the Secretary of State.
It is important to point out that such guidance was relevant purely to the implementation of the Act and that the Secretary of State's power to issue it expired. The regulator thereby became an independent person, undertaking a fundamentally quasi-judicial role in the execution of his duties.
The Government have made a conscious and political decision to turn the regulator from someone dispassionate and relatively uninvolved in the politics of the industry into an active player in such politics. To give an example of such a change, it was not right for the rail regulator to issue a press release following the Paddington crash suggesting that he might remove Railtrack's licence if it did not prove to be a safe operator.
8 pm
The regulator had no case for making such a suggestion. It was purely bandwagon-jumping in the aftermath of the horror of that crash. It was a populist move which demonstrated that the present regulator sees himself as some kind of new Labour people's champion, rather than a dispassionate regulator of the industry. He told me that he regards himself as the voice of the customer, rather than an interpreter of statute and an enforcer of conditions laid down in agreed rules.
Such politicised regulation should not exist, but the Bill provides precisely for it by restoring the authority of the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the regulator in perpetuity. That is why we have tabled an amendment. It is reasonable for the SRA to receive guidance from the Secretary of State. The amendments make it clear that the Secretary of State can issue guidance to the authority, but not to the regulator.
I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 416, which refers to clause 202 and the enforcement regime. It raises our third fundamental objection to this part of the Bill. The penalties that the regulator can apply are much wider than those in the Railways Act 1993. They can be imposed retrospectively, without limit. For example, the regulator is at present threatening Railtrack with a substantial fine—I do not remember the exact figure, but it is millions of pounds—in relation to a two-year period during which Railtrack has improved its performance by 9 per cent.
As a result of the Southall rail crash, the train operating company received a fine of less than £2 million, for an accident which resulted in people being killed. It seem extraordinary that although Railtrack improved its performance by 9 per cent., it will be fined many millions of pounds just because it has not reached the target set by the regulator.
Yes, I am sure that the regulator is within his powers, and yes, I am sure that that will raise a cheer from the populist press, but the regulator should ask himself whether such fines are in the interests of a better railway, or whether they are being imposed so that he can be the passengers' champion and play to the gallery.
We propose an amendment to clause 202, which extends the enforcement regime. Rather than leaving the scale of the penalty at
such amount as is reasonable,
we suggest that the fine should be of such an amount as
shall be commensurate with the contravention and with the turnover and profitability of the relevant operator provided that the appropriate authority is satisfied that such an imposition will help fulfil the general duties set out in section 4 of this Act.
The general duties in section 4 of the 1993 Act are to run a better railway.
Unless the fines are proportional and it can be demonstrated that they provide the incentive to make sure that the railway providers offer better trains, services and


facilities for passengers, what is the purpose of the fines? I do not see why the Minister should not accept the amendment.
Finally, amendment No. 417 proposes that clause 208 should be omitted from the Bill. One of the most iniquitous things that a regulator can do is to move the goalposts during the period of an agreement. The clause effectively gives the regulator powers to amend access agreements, which are the agreements between the train operating companies and Railtrack, unilaterally. Unless the operators have the certainty of their franchise contracts and their access agreements, commercial confidence in the railway's finances will be undermined.
Will the Minister explain how it can be just to give the regulator such wide powers? I can see that it would be convenient and provide more flexibility for the regulator, and might also be convenient for the operators, but it seems extraordinary that the regulator should have powers to change the access agreements by his own diktat.
This is an important group of amendments, dealing with the powers of the regulator and the directions of the Strategic Rail Authority, which go to the heart of some of the problems in the Bill. I hope that even at this late stage, the Minister will take on board some of the points that I have made in the hope of improving the Bill.
With all the extra regulatory and commercial uncertainty created, the huge shopping list of investment projects needed for the railway—£52 billion is specified in the network management statement—as well as the queue of investment proposals from the train operating companies and the refranchising procedure, the danger is that unless we can provide confidence and certainty for investors and a stable regulatory regime, the money will not be forthcoming and the burden on the taxpayer will once again increase.
The only extra money that the Government are spending on transport is not the result of any increase in the Chancellor's largesse, or the result of all the extra taxes being paid by motorists. It is because of the falling subsidies on the railway that the Chancellor has allowed Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to keep a small amount of that money to spend on other transport projects, inadequate as it is. If we had not privatised the railway, the Secretary of State would not have even that money to spend.
If we do not want to start diverting resources in large measure back to the railways because legislation such as the Bill has choked off the supply of private investment, the Minister should listen to what the industry is saying, which is what I have expressed from the Opposition Dispatch Box this evening.

Mr. Hill: The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) made a serious speech, to which I shall respond seriously and in detail. I hope that the House will forgive me if I speak at some length.
Amendments Nos. 412 and 414 to 417 would amend the powers and duties of the rail regulator. Amendment No. 412 would remove the regulator's power to give a direction to improve an existing facility or to provide a new one, provided that he is satisfied that there will be adequate reward. Amendments Nos. 414 and 415 would remove the Secretary of State's power to give general

guidance to the regulator. Instead, the regulator would be required to have regard to the Secretary of State's general guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority. Amendment No. 416 seeks to put additional conditions on penalties imposed by the regulator and the SRA. Amendment No. 417 would remove the regulator's power to direct parties to amend an access agreement to permit more extensive use of facilities.
Before dealing with the amendments in detail, I shall dispose of the bottleneck argument that the hon. Member for North Essex presented. If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he argues that a bottleneck in investment might develop. However, the Strategic Rail Authority's strategies will be published and its views will be well known to the industry. Fears of a bottleneck are therefore groundless; such a notion is far fetched. I hope that I shall be able to develop that point in more detail and allay the other anxieties that the hon. Gentleman articulated.
I shall deal with the amendments in turn and explain why they are not desirable. First, let us consider amendment No. 412. Clause 200 enables the Rail Regulator to give a direction to a person who is in a position to act to improve an existing facility or provide a new facility. That power can be exercised only through an application from the SRA or a third party, with the consent of the authority. As we said in Committee, that power will ensure that improvements can be made to the network when they are in the public interest.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hill: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself and allow me to develop the argument, I shall give way in due course.
There may well be circumstances in which the SRA considers that there is a strategic need for a new or improved facility, but where the person in control of the facility has a short-term view and does not wish to make the investment or has other priorities. In such cases, the clause will provide the balance between the interests of facility owners and the long-term strategic needs of the railway.
An improvement may be sought by a third party, who applies directly to the Rail Regulator, but he must have the consent of the SRA. That will ensure the existence of a genuine interest, which is wider than the commercial interest of one party, and accords with the wider aims of the authority.
I repeat that clause 200 is not designed to replace the normal commercial judgments and investments of facility owners such as Railtrack or English, Welsh and Scottish Railway. It does not preclude voluntary arrangements between a facility owner and someone who wishes to agree terms for an enhancement. The clause provides the element of compulsion necessary to ensure that an investment occurs. That power is to be used sparingly by the SRA as a last resort.
In most cases, we would expect funding bodies such as the SRA to come to voluntary contractual agreements for enhancements that are not commercial, and to make requests to the regulator only as a last resort.

Mr. Jenkin: Two phrases expose the flaw in the Minister's argument. He assumes that the industry will


take a "short-term", myopic view, when all the evidence suggests that, under privatisation, the industry is taking a longer view than under nationalisation.
Secondly, the Minister claims that the power will be used "sparingly". However, its existence means that all railway operators will be looking over their shoulders and wondering whether every investment that they make is acceptable to the SRA. They have limited funds for investment. If they invest in the wrong facility, will they also be required to invest in a different facility? The increase in investment that the railway needs will be achieved only by setting the industry free from such restraint.

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to assert that the powers are being introduced on the assumption that the industry will have a tendency towards short-term decision making. No such assumptions are made. The powers are designed to take account of circumstances in which it is deemed that a short-term approach is being adopted. They constitute a fall-back, and will be used sparingly. We have no reason to believe that the relationship with the industry will not be voluntary and co-operative.
As a check, I confirm that the final decision belongs to the Rail Regulator. He will operate under the duties in section 4 of the Railways Act 1993. They include the duty to act in a way which he considers will not make it unduly difficult for the holders of network licences, such as Railtrack, to finance their activities.

Mrs. Laing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hill: Let me develop the argument. With respect, the hon. Lady is relatively new to the arguments. I was delighted to embrace the proposals in the Bill that she introduced under the ten-minute Bill procedure. However, it was on a different matter in relation to which I acknowledge her expertise. I want to develop my argument on return on investment, an important issue that the hon. Member for North Essex raised.
In all cases, the rail regulator must be satisfied that there will be adequate reward for the improvements or new facilities. That will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. It means that the regulator will take a view that the facility owner will not be out of pocket. It does not mean that the facility owner will be remunerated in advance. We have made it clear that the rail regulator will be able to take account of indirect receipts and other benefits that are likely to accrue to the facility owner.
An independent economic regulator is best placed to decide whether compensation for any direction is adequate. The regulator is developing a framework for enhancing expenditure, including a policy statement that relates to enhancement. It will relate primarily to work on Railtrack's network. The regulator intends the policy statement to cover all sorts of enhancements, whether they are initiated by operators, funders or Railtrack, and whether they are undertaken by Railtrack or others.
The regulator envisages that the framework will establish the way in which he will assess the adequate reward for an infrastructure operator to improve facilities, including the appropriate rate of return and taking account of the risks.
It is right for Railtrack, its customers and funders, such as the SRA, to understand in advance the treatment of enhancement of the network under Railtrack's financial regulatory framework. When the regulator publishes his final conclusion later this year, it will reduce the uncertainties that Railtrack has encountered in the past, give the company an incentive to improve, enlarge the network and thus serve the public interest better.
Amendments Nos. 414 and 415 would have the combined effect of removing the Secretary of State's power to give "general guidance" to the Rail Regulator. Instead, the regulator would be required to have regard to the Secretary of State's general guidance to the SRA.
I assure the House that the Government want to ensure that the Rail Regulator can continue to act as an independent economic regulator. However, clause 201(6), which is similar to the time-limited provision in the 1993 Act, does not undermine the Rail Regulator's independence.
As we explained in detail in Committee, subsection (6) does not permit the Secretary of State to dictate to the regulator how he should perform his functions. However, the regulator does not operate in a policy vacuum. It is right, given the extent of public subsidy and the enormous public interest in the railways, that he should have regard to the general direction in which the Secretary of State wants railway policy to develop, as part of an integrated transport system.
I repeat the assurance that any guidance will be at a general and high level. For example, I envisage guidance on the part that the Government expect the railway to play in their wider policy of integrated transport. The guidance may cover the Government's aim of a safe, growing and improving railway. It may also cover such matters as the policy balance that the Government support between a franchised railway and an open access one.
The guidance will not enable the Secretary of State to dictate Railtrack's rate of return—we would not wish to do that. That would be entirely inappropriate. The regulator is constituted as an independent and economic regulator, and that is how he will remain under the Bill.
The general guidance power in the Bill will not, as the hon. Member for North Essex asserted, politicise the regulator. He will have a duty to have regard to general guidance but he will remain independent. It is still for the regulator to decide what weight to give to the Secretary of State's guidance and to balance that against his other duties under section 4 of the Railways Act 1993. For those reasons, we think that it is entirely proper for the Secretary of State to be able to give guidance direct to the regulator. We see no reason for accepting amendments Nos. 414 and 415, which would substitute an indirect influence via the Secretary of State's guidance to the SRA. The SRA and the regulator have very different functions. It is wrong in principle to require the regulator to have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance to the SRA, when that guidance may and will cover matters in which the regulator has no role.
Amendments Nos. 414 and 415 would lead to uncertainty. The regulator might find difficulty in knowing what was general guidance of which he must take account, and what was detailed franchise-specific guidance to the SRA, which he would need to ignore.

Mrs. Laing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hill: Of course I shall give way, now that the hon. Lady has had a chance to listen to the development of the argument.

Mrs. Laing: I assure the Minister that I am not new to this subject. I remember every minute of the arguments that were advanced during consideration of what was the Railways Bill, which became the Railways Act 1993. The Minister was then only a member of the Select Committee on Transport, and he was quizzing the Conservative Government on what that measure meant. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said in the past five minutes or so. Does he agree that the general direction of everything that he has said during that period is to reverse the principles of the freedom that the 1993 Act gave to the railways and to take power back to the Secretary of State and the Government? The Bill is anti-commercial.

Mr. Hill: No, I do not agree. What is more, I think that the hon. Lady should understand that the premise of the Railways Act 1993 was to deal with a limited no-growth railway, and to privatise it. The thrust of the Bill is to take into account the success of the railway. I concede that it has been successful in many respects under privatisation and as a result of it. I think that we all acknowledge that there has been a great deal of innovation in the industry and a greater focus on customer care. However, there remain, as the hon. Member for North Essex must concede, several problems that are associated with the railway. For example, there are issues involving overcrowding and unpunctuality. By means of the Bill, we need to create a proper and flexible framework that will allow for an expanding railway. The intentions and purposes behind the Bill are entirely positive and supportive of a growing railway. I hope that my response reassures the hon. Lady.
There are some matters that the Secretary of State may wish to include in guidance to the regulator which would not be appropriate to include in his guidance to the SRA. For example, guidance to the regulator may include the Government's high-level objectives for the railway, whereas objectives for the SRA are already prescribed in clause 182.
I reiterate that I reject any suggestion that the regulator has become a politicised figure. He is independent and he will remain so. The Government have great confidence in the abilities and activities of Mr. Tom Winsor. However, I turn to the epicentre—

Mr. Jenkin: Does the Minister think that the regulator was right to issue the press release just after the Paddington crash?

Mr. Hill: Given the commencement of the Cullen inquiry, it would be unwise now for a Minister to make any utterance on that issue from the Dispatch Box. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not responding directly to his intervention. I hope also that he will understand the circumstances in which I decline to do so.
I move on to what I detect is the epicentre of the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, and that is his contention that no analogous power exists within the existing railway or

other structures. It is true that no other regulator is subject to guidance from the Secretary of State. However, no other regulated industry receives more than £1 billion per annum in financial support from the Government. There is no equivalent in other regulated industries of the SRA. Railways are different from other regulatory models. A model that suits gas and electricity is not inevitably the right one for railways.
We have the right answer for the railways—[Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for North Essex say from a sedentary position, "Renationalisation by the back door." During our many hours together in Committee and in the Chamber while considering the Bill, I have grown to become quite fond of the hon. Gentleman. That has not always been easy but, over time, it became possible. However, I shall have to confide to my diary my worries about a distinct tendency on his part to having bees in the bonnet. I dare hardly mention EUROCONTROL, of which we have heard far too much during our proceedings. We have heard from the hon. Gentleman that he regards clause 200 as evil. I believe that those are his words. I thought at the beginning of the debate that we had made progress and that the hon. Gentleman had abandoned his anxieties about renationalisation by stealth or the back door, but alas we have not. Although he tries to repress that attitude, deep down it is there, and from time to time it bubbles up. That is a pity, and I am worried about the hon. Gentleman.
There is one further point about the regulator and guidance from the Secretary of State. Under the Utilities Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will have the power to issue guidance on any of the Government's social and environmental policies. In a limited respect, there are parallels to the relationship between the Secretary of State and the regulator as set out in the Bill.
Amendment No. 416 concerns penalties imposed by the SRA and the regulator. It goes to the heart of the purpose of penalties by seeking to spell them out in detail. It seeks to make them proportionate and to fulfil wider purposes. The amendment is not necessary because the objectives that lie behind it are already contained within the concept of reasonableness. That is the form of the drafting, and it captures the aim more succinctly and more comprehensively than the amendment.
The test of reasonableness covers proportionality, which the amendment specifies as being commensurate with the contravention. It also covers turnover and profitability. If a penalty is imposed that is disproportionate in terms of the company or the contravention, it would not by definition be reasonable and would not be within the power of the appropriate authority to impose.
The regulator and the SRA will have to publish their policies towards calculating the amount of a penalty and to have regard to the published policies when imposing a penalty. Such policies might include one on having regard to the need to secure compliance, the consequences of the breach and the deterrence of future breaches. We cannot specify what level a penalty will be in advance because that will, and must, depend on the breach. It can be a heavy one only if the breach is serious and where there has been harm. In a lesser breach the penalty would be less.
I should mention the last part of amendment No. 416, which refers to penalties fulfilling the general section 4 duties. These duties are the manner in which the Rail Regulator or the SRA must exercise their regulatory functions. As they are not objectives in themselves, that is not appropriate. However, the wider purpose of the enforcement regime is, of course, to enforce the obligations which companies have entered into and to protect the interests of rail users, so some of the spirit of this is in the regime in any event. However, in exercising their respective functions, the regulator will be subject to his section 4 duties and the SRA will be subject to its clause 184 duties.
8.30 pm
The hon. Gentleman asked why there is no upper limit on financial penalties. The important point is that the penalty imposed must be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. A serious contravention could attract a considerable penalty whereas a minor contravention could attract only a minor penalty. The concept of proportionality is central to the provisions on imposing financial penalties. Furthermore, companies will be able to appeal to the courts on the imposition and the amount of any financial penalty. The courts may quash the penalty or substitute a lower one if they consider the amount to be unreasonable. I say again that the penalties must be of a reasonable amount. Railtrack is appealing to the courts on penalties at present, but, again, I am not able to comment.
Amendment No. 417 would remove the regulator's power to direct the parties to an access agreement—perhaps between Railtrack and a train operating company—to amend an access or network installation contract to permit more extensive use of the railway facility or network installation in question. Clause 208 is necessary because, for the first time in many years, the railway is growing. The hon. Gentleman and I agree about and rejoice in that. We need to be absolutely sure that the mechanism exists to require facility owners to provide additional access rights where there is spare capacity.
Section 22(6) of the Railways Act 1993 provides that the regulator may not require amendments to be made to an access agreement to give additional access rights, and he may not undermine the intention of that provision by entertaining a new application for additional rights. Hence the need to be absolutely sure. I emphasise that this is not additional regulation. Clause 208 makes it clear that the regulator's powers in relation to applications for access apply equally where someone who already has access wants more.
At present, section 22(6) of the 1993 Act prevents a holder of access rights from using section 17 to secure rights to run more trains on reasonable terms. That is nonsense, and it shows how Conservative Members failed to legislate for a growing railway in 1993.

It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [9 May], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 15

REVIEW OF ACCESS CHARGES BY REGULATOR

'.—(1) In the Railways Act 1993, after section 19 insert—

Review of access charges by Regulator

19A. Schedule 4A to this Act (which contains provision about the review of access charges by the Regulator) shall have effect.
(2) After Schedule 4 to that Act insert, as Schedule 4A, the Schedule set out in Schedule (Review of access charges by Regulator) to this Act.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 16

LICENCE MODIFICATIONS FOLLOWING COMPETITION COMMISSION REPORT

'.—(1) In section 15 of the Railways Act 1993 (modification of licence conditions following report of Competition Commission), after subsection (4) insert—
(4A) Where (after considering any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn) the Regulator or Authority proposes to make or require the making of modifications under this section, he or it shall give notice to the Competition Commission—

(a) setting out the modifications he proposes to make or it proposes to require to be made; and
(b) stating the reasons why he proposes to make the modifications or it proposes to require the making of them.
(4B) The Regulator or Authority shall include with the notice under subsection (4A) above a copy of any representations and objections which have been considered.
4C) If the period within which a direction may be given by the Competition Commission under section 15A below expires without such a direction being given, the Regulator or Authority shall make, or require the making of, the modifications set out in the notice given under subsection (4A) above.
(4D) If a direction is given by the Competition Commission under section 15A(1)(b) below, the Regulator or Authority shall make, or require the making of, such of those modifications as are not specified in the direction.
(2) After that section insert—
Competition Commission's power to veto modifications following report
15A.—(1) The Competition Commission may, within the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which they are given notice under section 15(4A) above, give a direction to the Regulator or Authority—

(a) not to make, or require the making of, the modifications set out in the notice; or
(b) not to make such of those modifications as are specified in the direction.
(2) The Secretary of State may, if an application is made to him by the Competition Commission within that period of four weeks, extend the period within which a direction may be given under this section to one of six weeks beginning with the day on which the Competition Commission are given notice under section 15(4A) above.
(3) The Competition Commission may give a direction under this section only if the modifications to which it relates do not appear to them requisite for the purpose of remedying or preventing the adverse effects specified in their report on the reference under section 13 above.

(4) If the Competition Commission give a direction under this section, they shall give notice—

(a) setting out the modifications contained in the notice given under section 15(4A) above;
(b) setting out the direction; and
(c) stating the reasons why they are giving the direction.

(5) A notice under subsection (4) above shall be given—

(a) by publishing the notice in such manner as the Competition Commission consider appropriate for the purpose of bringing the matters to which the notice relates to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the direction; and
(b) by serving a copy of the notice on the holder of the licence.

Making of modifications by Competition Commission

15B.—(1) If the Competition Commission give a direction under section 15A above, they may themselves make such modifications of the conditions of the licence as appear to them requisite for the purpose of remedying or preventing—

(a) the adverse effects specified in their report on the reference under section 13 above; or
(b) such of those adverse effects as would not be remedied or prevented by the modifications made by the Regulator, or required to be made by the Authority, under section 15(4D) above.

(2) In exercising the function conferred by subsection (1) above, the Competition Commission shall have regard to the matters as respects which duties are imposed on the Regulator by section 4 above.

(3) Before making modifications under this section, the Competition Commission shall give notice—

(a) stating that they propose to make the modifications and setting out their effect,
(b) stating the reasons why they propose to make the modifications, and
(c) specifying the period (not being less than 28 days from the date of publication of the notice) within which representations or objections may be made,
and shall consider any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn.

(4) A notice under subsection (3) above shall be given—

(a) by publishing the notice in such manner as the Competition Commission consider appropriate for the purpose of bringing the matters to which the notice relates to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the making of the modifications; and
(b) by serving a copy of the notice on the holder of the licence.

(5) As soon as practicable after making any modifications under this section, the Competition Commission shall send a copy of those modifications to the Regulator, the Authority and the Health and Safety Executive.

Sections 15A and 15B: supplementary

15C.—(1) The provisions mentioned in subsection (2) below are to apply in relation to the exercise by the Competition Commission of their functions under sections 15A and 15B above as if—

(a) in section 82(1) and (2) of the 1973 Act references to a report of the Competition Commission under that Act were references to a notice under section 15A(4) or 15B(3) above;
(b) in section 85 of that Act references to an investigation on a reference made to the Competition Commission were references to an investigation by the Competition Commission for the purposes of the exercise of their functions under those sections; and

(c) in section 93B of that Act references to the functions of the Competition Commission under that Act were references to their functions under those sections.

(2) The provisions are—

(a) sections 82(1) and (2) (general provisions as to reports), 85 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents) and 93B (false or misleading information) of the 1973 Act;
(b) Part II of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998 (performance of the Competition Commission's general functions); and
(c) section 24 of the 1980 Act (modification of provisions about performance of such functions).

(3) For the purpose of assisting the Competition Commission in exercising their functions under sections 15A and 15B above, the Regulator and the Authority shall give to the Competition Commission any information in his or its possession which relates to matters relevant to the exercise of those functions and—

(a) is requested by the Competition Commission for that purpose; or
(b) is information which, in his or its opinion, it would be appropriate for that purpose to give to the Competition Commission without any such request;
and any other assistance which the Competition Commission may require, and which it is within his or its power to give, in relation to any such matters.

(4) For the purpose of exercising those functions, the Competition Commission shall take account of any information given to them for that purpose under subsection (3) above.".'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17

AUTHORITY'S DUTY TO CONTINUE BOARD'S PRACTICE OF INDEXATION

'.—(1) The Authority shall make provision for increases in pensions and capital sums to which this section applies broadly corresponding to each increase in official pensions under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 and section 59 of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 ("an official pensions increase").

(2) This section applies to a pension or capital sum at any time if—

(a) at that time it is a pension in payment, a deferred pension or capital sum or a pension or capital sum to which a person's future entitlement is contingent on the death of another person, and
(b) the Board either made provision for an increase in it broadly corresponding to an official pensions increase or would have done so if it had been within paragraph (a) at a time when the Board made provision for increases broadly corresponding to an official pensions increase.

(3) But where it was the practice of the Board, when making increases broadly corresponding to an official pensions increase, in any circumstances—

(a) not to make provision for an increase, or
(b) to make provision for an increase of a reduced amount,
subsection (1) does not require the Authority to make in similar circumstances provision for an increase in excess of any for which the Board would have made provision.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18

AMENDMENTS OF PENSION PROTECTION PROVISIONS

.—(1) In paragraph 6(2)(a)(ii) of Schedule 11 to the Railways Act 1993 (power to make order providing for pension rights of protected persons to be no less favourable as a result of a transfer of pension rights), after "rights" insert "(whether made between occupational pension schemes or sections of an occupational pension scheme or otherwise)".

(2) The Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order 1994 is amended as follows.

(3) In article 6 (transfers etc.), insert at the end—
(9) In paragraphs (2), (3), (5), (7)(a) and (b)(1) and (8) references to an occupational pension scheme include a section of such a scheme.

(4) In article 7(4) (payments on transfers), insert at the end (but not as part of sub—paragraph (b))—
and in this paragraph references to an occupational pension scheme include a section of such a scheme.

(5) In article 9 (circumstances in which breaks in continuity of employment are disregarded)—

(a) in paragraph (2), omit ", except to the extent specified in paragraph (3)," and "relevant" (in both places), and
(b) in paragraph (3), for "this article" substitute "paragraph

(6) In article 11(4) (activities to be regarded as the railway industry)—

(a) after "of Schedule 11 are" insert "the activities of the Authority or any subsidiary of the Authority and activities consisting of', and
(b) for "in each case" substitute "in each of the cases in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d)".

(7) Omit paragraphs 13 and 14 (arbitration).

(8) The amendments made by subsections (3) to (7) shall be treated as if made by an order made under Schedule 11 to the Railways Act 1993 (and, accordingly, may be varied or revoked by an order so made).'—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 19

TAXATION OF TRANSFERS

'. Schedule (Transfers: Tax) contains provisions about tax.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 184

MANNER OF EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS

Amendment made: No. 255, in page 103, line 30, leave out—
', loans or other payments made'
and insert—
'or other payments or loans made by it, any guarantees given by it and any investment in bodies corporate'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 189

SECURING OF SERVICES BY FRANCHISING

Amendment made: No. 256, in page 106, line 4, leave out—
'that Act, after section 26'

and insert—
'section 26 of that Act (invitations to tender for franchise), after subsection (3) insert
(4) The directions which may be given under subsection (1) above (at any time when the Secretary of State considers it inappropriate that the person who is to be the franchisee under a franchise agreement should be selected after an invitation to tender) include—

(a) a direction that that person is to be the person specified in the direction; and
(b) a direction requiring the Authority to select that person in such manner as is so specified,
(as well as a direction authorising the Authority to select that person in such other manner as it may consider appropriate).
(5) The Secretary of State shall prepare and publish a statement of policy with respect to directions under subsection (1) above.
(6) The statement shall (in particular) contain the Secretary of State's policy about—

(a) when he will consider giving a direction (including, in particular, when he will consider doing so in relation to a franchise agreement which is to replace an earlier franchise agreement before the end of its franchise term); and
(b) the sorts of direction which he will consider giving in particular circumstances.
(7) In deciding whether to give a direction, and (if so) what direction to give, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the statement of policy.
(8) The Secretary of State—

(a) may at any time alter or replace a statement of policy, and
(b) shall publish the altered or replacement statement.
(9) The Secretary of State shall undertake appropriate consultation when preparing, altering or replacing a statement of policy.
(10) When a statement of policy is prepared, altered or replaced, a copy of the statement shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
( ) After that section'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 200

REGULATOR'S POWER TO REQUIRE PROVISION ETC. OF RAILWAY FACILITIES

Amendments made: No. 308, in page 117, line 23, leave out—
'it was given, the applicant'
and insert—
'the direction was given, the applicant for the direction'.

No. 309, in page 117, line 28, after "varied" insert—
'on an application by the applicant for the direction or the Authority'.

No. 310, in page 117, line 29, leave out "it" and insert "the direction".

No. 311, in page 117, line 33, at end insert—
'(5) The Regulator may grant an application for the variation or revocation of a direction under section 16A above by the applicant for the direction or the Authority on condition that he or it secures


that any such compensation as the Regulator may specify is paid to the person to whom the direction was given in respect of any liabilities incurred, or other things done, by him in complying with the direction.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 202

PENALTIES

Amendments made: No. 257, in page 119, line 25, at end insert—
'(3) No penalty may be imposed in respect of any contravention of a final or provisional order if provision was made in the order by virtue of section 55(7A) above in relation to the contravention.

Statement of policy

57AA.'.

No. 258, in page 119, line 38, leave out—
', is being or is likely to be'
and insert "or is being".

No. 259, in page 120, leave out lines 15 to 18 and inser—
'( ) This section applies in relation to sums required to be paid by virtue of section 55(7A) above as to penalties, but as if—

(a) references to the imposition of penalties were to the inclusion in an order of a requirement to pay a sum;
(b) references to relevant conditions or requirements were omitted; and
(c) the reference in subsection (4)(b) above to anything which has been or is being done included a reference to anything which is likely to be done.'.

No. 260, in page 120, line 27, leave out "or would constitute".

No. 261, in page 121, line 29, leave out "or would constitute".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 205

EXTENSION OF FUNCTIONS

Amendments made: No. 262, in page 125, line 29, at end insert—
'(7C) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Rail Passengers' Council, make an order providing that the duties imposed by this section apply to services of a particular class or description, particular services or services provided by a particular person—

(a) only to such extent as is specified by the order; or
(b) with such modifications as are so specified.".'.

No. 263, in page 126, line 2, at end insert—
'(9C) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Rail Passengers' Council, make an order providing that the duties imposed by this section apply to services of a particular class or description, particular services or services provided by a particular person—

(a) only to such extent as is specified by the order; or
(b) with such modifications as are so specified.".'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 208

AMENDMENT OF ACCESS AGREEMENTS

Amendments made: No. 312, in page 127, line 3, leave out "below" and insert—
'or 22C below or Schedule 4A to this Act'.

No. 313, in page 127, leave out lines 47 to 49.

No. 314, in page 129, line 11, after "22C" insert—

'.—(1) The Regulator may give directions requiring the parties to an access agreement to make to the access agreement amendments which are, in his opinion, necessary to give effect to the conditions of a licence or otherwise required in consequence of the conditions of a licence.
(2) The Regulator shall not have power to direct or otherwise require amendments to be made to an access agreement except in accordance with section 22A above, subsection (1) above or Schedule 4A to this Act.
(3)'.

No. 315, in page 129, line 16, leave out "or 22A above" and insert—
'above or subsection (2) above'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 216

WINDING DOWN AND ABOLITION OF BOARD

Amendment made: No. 264, in page 132, line 15, at beginning insert—
'(1) Section 84 of the Railways Act 1993 (power of Board to form companies) shall apply as if facilitating the carrying into effect of, or of any provision made under, sections 194, 195 and 215 and Schedules 17, 18 and 23 were a purpose specified by the Secretary of State under subsection (1)(d) of that section; and section 85 of that Act (power of Board to make transfer schemes) shall apply as if that were a purpose specified in subsection (3)(b) of that section.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 218

STANDARDS

Amendment made: No. 265, in page 134, line 12, leave out from "regulations" to end of line 15 and insert—
'( ) The regulations may provide for such offences to be triable—

(a) only summarily, or
(b) either summarily or on indictment.
( ) The regulations may provide for an offence triable only summarily to be punishable on conviction with a fine not exceeding—

(a) level 5 on the standard scale, or
(b) such lower amount as may be prescribed.
( ) The regulations may provide for an offence triable either summarily or on indictment to be punishable—

(a) on summary conviction, with a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or such lower amount as may be prescribed, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, with a fine.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Amendment made: No. 317, in page 135, line 31, leave out Clause 221. [Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 222

STAMP DUTY AND STAMP DUTY RESERVE TAX

Amendment made: Leave out Clause 222.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 13

STRATEGIC RAIL AUTHORITY

Amendments made: No. 319, in page 201, line 18, at end insert—

'Taxation

13A.—(l) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of eliminating, or reducing to such extent as may be prescribed, the Authority's liability to tax in respect of—

(a) income and chargeable gains, or
(b) any prescribed class of income or chargeable gains.

(2) The regulations may, in particular, provide—

(a) for any elimination or reduction of liability to tax conferred by virtue of sub—paragraph (1) to be subject to prescribed conditions (including conditions requiring prescribed activities of the Authority to be carried out by persons other than the Authority), and
(b) for transactions entered into by the Authority not to be invalidated merely by reason of a contravention of any such conditions.

(3) The regulations may—

(a) for purposes connected with any elimination or reduction of liability to tax conferred by virtue of sub—paragraph (1), apply or modify any provision made by or under the Corporation Tax Acts (including provision made by Schedule (Transfers: Tax)),
(b) make different provision for different cases, and
(c) include such incidental, consequential, supplementary and transitional provision and savings as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate.

(4) Regulations under this paragraph—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
(b) require the consent of the Treasury.

(5) No regulations shall be made under this paragraph unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the House of Commons.'.

No. 266, in page 204, line 20, at end insert—

'Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c.00)

. In Part VI of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities), insert (at the appropriate place in alphabetical order)

The Strategic Rail Authority…—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 15

TRANSFER TO SRA OF FRANCHISING DIRECTOR'S FUNCTIONS

Amendment made: No. 320, in page 217, line 28, leave out paragraph 61 and insert—
'61. For section 196 (power of Greater London Authority to give instructions or guidance to Franchising Director) and the heading before it substitute—

The Authority and the Strategic Rail Authority

Power of Authority to give directions and guidance to Strategic Rail Authority

196.—(1) The Authority may give directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority in relation to the provision of railway services in Greater London.

(2) It is immaterial for the purpose of giving directions and guidance under subsection (1) above whether implementation of the directions and guidance affects railway services outside Greater London.

(3) The Strategic Rail Authority shall exercise its functions in the manner best calculated to implement any directions and guidance given to it by the Authority (but subject to subsections (4) and (5) below).

(4) The Strategic Rail Authority shall not implement any directions or guidance given to it by the Authority if or to the extent that to do so would prevent or seriously hinder the Strategic Rail Authority—

(a) from complying with any directions given to it by the Secretary of State under section 184(5) of the Transport Act 2000 or from having regard to any guidance so given; or
(b) from exercising any of its functions in a manner which is consistent with its financial framework.

(5) The Strategic Rail Authority need not implement any directions or guidance given to it by the Authority if or to the extent that to do so would—

(a) have an adverse effect on the provision of services for the carriage of passengers or goods by railway outside Greater London; or
(b) increase the amount of any expenditure of the Strategic Rail Authority under agreements or other arrangements entered into (in accordance with a franchise agreement) with the franchise operator, the franchisee or any servant, agent or independent contractor of the franchise operator or franchisee.

(6) If the Strategic Rail Authority decides not to implement any directions or guidance given to it by the Authority, whether generally or in a particular case, it shall give the Authority notification of the decision and its reasons for it.

(7) The directions and guidance which may be given under this section are—

(a) directions and guidance as to the manner in which the Strategic Rail Authority is to exercise its functions in order to comply with section 184(1) to (3) of the Transport Act 2000, and
(b) directions to the Strategic Rail Authority not to exercise any of its functions in a particular manner (or not to do so without consulting, or obtaining the consent of, the Authority),
in relation to the provision of services for the carriage of passengers by railway or the operation of additional railway assets under or by virtue of any franchise agreement or any provision of sections 30 and 37 to 49 of the Railways Act 1993.

(8) The functions of the Authority under this section shall be exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.

(9) Expressions used in this section and in Part I of the Railways Act 1993 have the same meaning in this section as in that Part.".'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 16

TRANSFERS TO SRA FROM RAIL REGULATOR

Amendments made: No. 321, in page 224, line 4, after "section" insert
'and to section 15A below'.

No. 322, in page 224, line 8, after "section" insert—
'and to section 15A below'.

No. 267, in page 227, line 36, at end insert—
'(3) Before section 47 insert—

Notification of minor closures to Regulator

46B. The Authority shall notify the Regulator of every determination under section 37(1), 38(2), 39(1), 40(2), 41(1) or 42(2) above that a closure is a minor closure.".'.

No. 268, in page 227, line 48, leave out—
'and every decision that a closure is minor'
and insert—
', every determination under section 37(1), 38(2), 39(1), 40(2), 41(1) or 42(2) above that a closure is a minor closure, every condition imposed under section 37(1), 39(1) or 41(1) above, every general determination under section 46A above and every revocation of a general determination under that section'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 17

TRANSFER TO SRA OF BR's FUNCTIONS RELATING TO TRANSPORT POLICE

Amendments made: No. 269, in page 230, line 34, leave out "and (1A)".

No. 270, in page 230, line 35, at end insert "and".

No. 271, in page 230, line 36, leave out from "Authority"," to end of line 39.

No. 272, in page 230, line 42, at end insert—
'( ) In subsection (2) (as substituted by section 25(2) of the British Railways Act 1978)—

(a) in paragraph (c), for "Commission" substitute "Authority", and
(b) in paragraph (e), for the words from "which authority" to "is hereby" substitute "which authority any justice or the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force is hereby".'.

No. 273, in page 231, leave out lines 25 to 27.

No. 274, in page 232, line 8, at end insert—
'In paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 10 (power of Secretary of State, after consultation with Board and others, to amend existing scheme for organisation of transport police), for "Board" (in both places) substitute "Authority".'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 24

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS ABOUT RAILWAYS

Amendments made: No. 323, in page 250, line 47, at end insert—

'Transport Act 1980 (c.34)

Part III of the Transport Act 1980 (railway pensions) has effect subject to the following amendments.

. In section 52A(13) (provisions for final discharge of Secretary of State not to affect liability of Board in respect of relevant pension obligations), for "Board" substitute "Authority".

. In section 52B(10) (provisions for substitution order not to affect liability of Board in respect of relevant pension obligations), for "Board" substitute "Authority".

—(1) Section 53 (meaning of "relevant pension obligations") is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for "Board which were owed" substitute "Authority which were owed by the Board", and
(b) for "Board arising after the operative date" (in both places) substitute "Authority which arose as an obligation of the Board after the operative date or was never an obligation of the Board".

(3) In subsection (4), for "Board" (in each place) substitute "Authority".

. In section 59(2) (supplementary), for "they" substitute "the Authority (in the case of a scheme established by the Board) or the Corporation".

. In section 60(1) (interpretation), before the definition of "the Board" insert—
"the Authority" means the Strategic Rail Authority;".'.

No. 275, in page 251, line 5, at end insert—

'Channel Tunnel Act 1987 (c.53)

. In paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 to the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 (application of offence provisions), for "the Railways Board" substitute "a successor of the British Railways Board within the meaning of the Railways Act 1993 (Consequential Modifications) (No.2) Order 1999".'.

No. 324, in page 251, line 9, at end insert—
'. In section 9 (licence conditions), after subsection (3) insert—
(3A) Conditions included in a licence by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above may include provision about any matter which is dealt with (whether in the same or a different manner) by an access agreement.".'.

No. 325, in page 251, line 9, at end insert—
'.—(1) In section 13 (modification references to Competition Commission) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (8)(c), for "Director" substitute "Regulator".
(3) In subsection (8A)(a)—

(a) for "and 85" substitute ", 85", and
(b) after "documents)" insert "and 93B (false or misleading information)".'.

No. 326, in page 252, line 41, at end insert—
'(vb) every notice given by or to the Regulator or the Competition Commission under Schedule 4A to this Act:".'.

No. 327, in page 254, line 15, leave out from beginning to "for" in line 16 and insert—
'(1) Schedule 11 (pensions) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1(1) (interpretation), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "eligible person"—

(a) after "of the Board," insert—
(ia) the Authority or any subsidiary of the Authority,", and

(b)'.

No. 328, in page 254, line 18, at end insert—
'(3) In paragraphs 3(4) and 4(5), for "after consultation with" substitute "with the consent of'.
(4) In paragraph 10(15)(b), for "Board" (in both places) substitute "Authority".
(5) In paragraph 11(10), in the definition of "relevant employer" insert at the end—

"(d) the Authority; or
(e) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Authority.".'.

No. 276, in page 254, line 26, at end insert—
'. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 has effect subject to the following amendments.
. After section 42 insert—

Strategic Rail Authority as agent of Secretary of State

42A.—(1) The Strategic Rail Authority may do anything which it arranges with the Secretary of State to do on his behalf in connection with any agreement or other arrangement made by him for the purpose of securing the design, construction, financing, maintenance or operation of the rail link or any of the other works authorised by this Part of this Act.

(2) Subsection (1) above—

(a) does not authorise the Strategic Rail Authority to exercise any function conferred or imposed by or by virtue of any enactment, and
(b) is subject to the terms of the agreement or other arrangement.

(3) Sections 184 and 185 of the Transport Act 2000 do not apply to the power conferred by this section.".'.

No. 277, in page 254, line 27, leave out—
'to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 25

TRANSITIONALS AND SAVINGS ABOUT RAILWAYS

Amendments made: No. 278, in page 256, line 29, at end insert—
' The fact that a statement of policy has not been published by the Secretary of State under section 26(5) of the Railways Act 1993, as inserted by section 189, does not affect the validity of any direction given under section 26(1) of that Act.'.

No. 279, in page 257, line 4, at end insert—
'or
(b) the inclusion in a final or provisional order of any requirement to pay a sum or any determination of the amount of any sum payable in accordance with such an order.'.

No. 329, in page 257, line 9, at end insert—

'Review of access charges

.—(1) This paragraph applies if, before this Act is passed, notice has been given by the Regulator of his conclusions on an access charges review (within the meaning of Schedule 4A to the Railways Act 1993, as inserted by Schedule (Review of access charges by Regulator) to this Act) but the conclusions have not been implemented.

(2) The conclusions may be implemented after the time by which they are to be implemented in accordance with the access agreement.

(3) The procedure for the implementation of the conclusions shall be as provided for by paragraphs 4 to 16 of Schedule 4A to the Railways Act 1993 (and not as provided for by the access agreement).'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Ordered,
That Clause 220 be transferred to end of line 4 on page 133.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

New Clause 3

ROAD TRAFFIC REDUCTION STRATEGY

'(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State (in respect of England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in respect of Wales), within one year of the coming into force of this Act, to prepare a strategy specifying an indicative level of road traffic for each year over the next ten years such that by the year 2010, total road traffic miles do not exceed 90 per cent. of the levels which apply on the day when this Act comes into force.

(2) In preparing the strategy the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales shall consult such persons as they see fit.

(3) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall as soon as is practicable after its completion publish the strategy and take such steps as are in their opinion necessary to ensure that the indicative levels are met.

(4) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall thereafter report from time to time on the progress of the strategy.

(5) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may amend the strategy from time to time as they see fit to ensure that the indicative levels are met.'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
A number of hon. Members may have been expecting the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) to move the new clause, but he is out of the country and unable to be with us. With the permission of the House, I shall speak in his place.
The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and I have not agreed on much, but I am grateful to him for not pressing amendment No. 412 to the vote, thereby enabling us to debate road traffic reduction targets and providing at least a few moments for the Minister to discuss proposals relating to school crossing patrols, on which I hope there will be good news.
Hon. Members will be aware that I am not new to the issue. Indeed, I was delighted to be able to take through the House the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997, which was the first Act to refer to reducing traffic on our roads. The original version proposed requirements not only on local councils to adopt traffic reduction targets, but on central Government to develop traffic reduction targets over 10 years. Unfortunately, in order to get the Act through the House, the second provision had to be deleted.
The Labour Government seem almost obsessed with targets. They began with five pledges at the general election; now there are thousands of targets for one thing and another. Indeed, there are even targets for achieving targets, so it will not be difficult to convince them to add yet one more to that long roll call. Introducing traffic reduction targets would be of great benefit to them as it would clearly show their commitment to tackling the traffic problem. It would also show that they have taken the advice that they sought and that has been offered to them.
On a number of issues, the Government have been keen to follow the advice of the Commission for Integrated Transport, which was set up by the Deputy Prime Minister. They will therefore be aware that they invited the commission to consider the issue of traffic targets and that paragraph 7 of its report states:
We recognise that it should be possible to derive national benchmark profiles for congestion and traffic, but, having been developed in this bottom-up way, they must always be seen as indicative, and not prescriptive. Nevertheless, recognition by Government of such a bottom-up benchmark would demonstrate its commitment to pushing forward the integrated transport agenda.
The Government's own advisory body has recommended that there should be national indicative targets for traffic reduction, and that is what is proposed in new clause 3.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to draw up a strategy to reduce traffic by 10 per cent. on the current levels by 2010, and to set an indicative level for traffic for each year between now and then. That would have the advantage of demonstrating the Government's commitment. It would show that they take note of the advice that they have sought and have been given. Equally important, it would enable the Government to redeem the Labour party's promises and commitments.
During the 1997 election, the Labour party promised to
reduce and then reverse traffic growth.
Those words appeared on the party's election website, in policy briefings issued from Millbank and in the Labour policy handbook. Reducing traffic growth means traffic reduction.
The Deputy Prime Minister went a stage further and made clear what he understood that term to mean when he was reported in The Guardian of 6 May 1997 as saying:
I will have failed if in five years time there are not many more people using public transport and far fewer journeys by car. It's a tall order but I urge you to hold me to it.
That clear commitment was repeated on the Floor of the House during an exchange between him and me during a debate on the Queen's Speech on 18 November 1999. He made it absolutely clear that that was a clear commitment and a target that he had set himself. He said:
I readily set the target for myself and I am glad that we are on the way to achieving it.—[Official Report, 18 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 161.]
By setting indicative targets, the Labour party would have a real opportunity to redeem an election promise that was subsequently reiterated by the Deputy Prime Minister. It would also benefit many individual Labour Members. Early last year, 89 Labour MPs issued press releases to their local newspapers stating:
Traffic reduction is vital for human health, the environment, and social justice. It was an important Labour election pledge.
Perhaps more significantly, 300 Labour MPs have signed up to the Friends of the Earth campaign for road traffic reduction targets. Since Friends of the Earth first proposed a 10 per cent. traffic reduction target, more than 300 Labour MPs have publicly stated their support for that campaign.
New clause 3 merely repeats the words that were used by Friends of the Earth in its campaign. It merely repeats the words that 300 Labour MPs have signed up to and agreed to support. It merely repeats the commitment made by the Deputy Prime Minister. It gives voice to the commitments made by the Labour party in the run-up to the general election. I am confident that many Labour Members will be in the Division Lobby in a few minutes' time to support new clause 3. I can certainly assure the House that many Liberal Democrat Members will be there, because they, too, signed up to those commitments. They will honour their commitments by voting for new clause 3.

Mr. Robert Key: I hope that the Liberal Democrats will not push the new clause to a vote, because we are on a tight timetable and we should have a proper Third Reading debate on this huge Bill. However, should they be minded to do so, my advice to the House is not to support the new clause. The hon. Gentleman's speech shows the dangers of Members of Parliament signing up to the programmes of pressure groups, thereby extinguishing their right to make a sound judgment. I have always believed that we should listen to pressure groups and to our constituents and then make a judgment.
There is a simple problem with this road traffic reduction strategy—it will not work. I speak from many years' experience in my constituency. We have been disappointed by Government after Government who have refused to address the traffic problems of a mediaeval city. We thought we were close, but in the short space of about a fortnight the incoming Labour Government decided to cancel the best hope we had in Salisbury of improving the quality of life for our people and preserving our ancient city by building a bypass. That hope has been dashed by this Government.
8.45 pm
We are all in favour of reducing traffic—just as we are all against sin—so long as someone else is doing the reducing. That is the problem with soppy proposals such as this. There are various ways of tackling traffic problems. People can be taxed off the roads, or planned off the roads—which I think is probably the most effective method, speaking as a former Roads Minister. The Bill contains plenty of planning regulations in other guises that would achieve that aim. Public transport can be increased to an extent, and that will help, but it will never meet the needs of the rural constituencies represented by the Liberal Democrats who tabled this daft new clause. Alternatively, everyone can be condemned to gridlock, which is what is happening now.
In fact, only one thing will work. Before they get into their cars, people must ask themselves whether their journey is really necessary. In many cases it is not, and that consideration might enable us to make real progress.
I am worried about the idea of setting targets. In my experience, targets never work—there is always disappointment when they are not met, and it is always possible to find a reason for the fact that they are not achievable. There is another flaw in the new clause. Subsection (2) requires the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to
consult such persons as they see fit.
Whom will they consult? They will consult Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and all the other environmental groups—and so they should, and we should all listen to them. In the end, though, they might think of consulting their electorate. If they do so, their electorate will certainly not agree with them.
At the last general election, I was the only candidate who was in favour of a bypass. Guess who won? Guess whose election featured the second smallest swing against the Conservative party? I was deeply grateful to the Liberal Democrat candidate for supporting the anti-bypass proposals, because that ensured that I would be able to continue representing my constituents.
Proposals such as new clause 3 make nonsense of a sensible approach. Clause 92 says that local transport authorities should
develop policies for the promotion and encouragement of…efficient…transport.
The Government have got it half right, but they have got it half wrong as well. They refer to less desirable objectives which should be achieved, but certainly will not be achieved under Labour policy, such as the requirement for local authorities to
meet the needs of persons living or working in the authority's area.
I invite the Government to ask my constituents whether Labour's policy of cancelling the bypass is meeting their needs.
The new clause is not helpful, but we should not vote against it. Indeed, I hope that it will not be put to the vote. I hope that common sense will prevail—and common sense is what we need above all in our transport policy.

Mr. Hill: I hope that before I turn to the substance of this short debate, it will be convenient for the House if I say that I intend to accept new clause 32 and amendment


no. 418, relating to school crossings and tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). I congratulate my hon. Friend on his persistence and persuasiveness in urging the Government to make that change; it may be a tiny change in the wording of legislation, but it is likely to make an important contribution to the safety of all children and other vulnerable members of society.
I understand that new clause 4 has been the subject of a significant letter-writing and e-mail campaign in recent days. I know that members of Friends of the Earth, of whom I am one, take a keen interest in the subject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I hope that the Minister means new clause 3, which is what we are trying to discuss.

Mr. Hill: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I meant new clause 3.
The House will recall that it was the predecessor of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas)—sadly, the hon. Gentleman cannot be with us—who sponsored the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998. It was a considerable achievement to get that on to the statute book. I appreciate the reasons for tabling the new clause, but I cannot support its inclusion in the Bill.
As I am sure the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is aware, the Government's first report under the 1998 Act was published earlier this year. Our report, entitled "Tackling Congestion and Pollution", made it clear that we are not in favour of setting a national road traffic target in England. It may be helpful to remind the House of our reasons.

Mr. Patrick Hall: I understand that my hon. Friend wishes congestion to be tackled where it actually occurs—at local level—and by local authorities. In that context, I believe that he is saying that a national target is a diversion from achieving real results, but does he not accept that the aggregate effect of local action in towns and cities throughout the country would add up to a national reduction in road traffic? If he does, what is wrong with adopting a national target in that national perspective? Can he assure my constituents and me that if the Government are not to adopt a national target and specify it in the Bill, they will none the less give clear and firm leadership to help achieve substantive results?

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I recognise his powerful commitment, and he is right to say that we wish congestion to be tackled where it happens—at local level. We want to provide strategic guidance to local authorities and others on tackling congestion, but setting a national road traffic target is not the best way in which to do that, for two reasons.
First, as "Tackling Congestion and Pollution" makes clear, the national level of traffic is not a good indicator of our success in tackling congestion. Secondly, a national target takes no account of differing local circumstances. The need for congestion reduction is clearly different between, for example, rural Herefordshire and central Bristol. In the former case, a national target may be unnecessarily high. In the latter case, it may be

irrelevantly low. In neither case does it provide a meaningful target against which local authorities can measure local progress.
In "Tackling Congestion and Pollution" we did not simply reject the idea of a national road traffic reduction target. Following the advice of the Commission for Integrated Transport, we said that we would take forward its proposal for separate congestion benchmarks and targets for different area types. I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be the firmest leadership from Government in achieving substantive results. I hope to spell out how that will be achieved in my few remaining remarks.
The central contention of "Tackling Congestion and Pollution" is that we should focus our targets on the outcomes that we want to achieve, rather than crude national traffic volume figures. We do not believe that the national volume of road traffic is a good measure of our success in improving the things that really matter to people at local level, particularly congestion and pollution.
The report showed that over the next 10 years, principally through cleaner fuels and vehicles, we expect the contribution of road traffic to local air pollution to be more than halved. In addition, with widespread support from local authorities, local business and the public for the policies in our 1998 integrated transport White Paper and for the Transport Bill, it should be possible to reduce congestion, even when national traffic levels are rising.
Trends in road traffic growth and the need for improvement will be substantially different in different areas of the country and for different types of road. Benchmarks and targets, and the policies and mechanisms needed to achieve them, should themselves vary. Our strategy, set out in the integrated transport White Paper two years ago, emphasises the need for such a localised approach.
We have the right policies in place and they are beginning to have real effect. There has been a 15 per cent. increase in rail passenger journeys. Private sector rail investment has more than doubled since 1996–97. Private sector investment has been brought in: £8 billion for London Underground, £3.3 billion for the channel tunnel rail link, £1.3 billion for National Air Traffic Services.
Next year, we are providing £750 million—a 20 per cent. increase on previous provision—to help local authorities to implement local transport plans. In 2001–02, the figure is set to increase to £1 billion. Additionally, bus quality partnerships are proving a great success in 130 towns and cities, increasing bus usage by 10 to 20 per cent. Bus industry investment has doubled, to £380 million a year.

Mr. Jenkin: The industry has been privatised.

Mr. Hill: That is perfectly true, but the bus industry also benefits from £300 million a year in fuel duty rebate and from £200 million a year in direct subsidy. Therefore the state itself makes a reasonable contribution to the bus industry's success, which I am celebrating in my few remarks.
By 2001–02, we shall have increased annual provision for local road maintenance to more than £2.2 billion, which is 20 per cent. above the 1997 level. Additionally, the Chancellor announced in the Budget an extra £280 million for transport in 2000–01.
The 10-year plan for transport, which we shall publish in the summer, will provide the framework for investment in transport in the next decade. We believe that the way forward is to build on existing targets for the things that matter to people—air quality, the levels of greenhouse gases, health and road safety.
We intend to develop congestion benchmarks and targets for different types of area and road. We shall discuss our proposals for local congestion benchmarks with local authorities, businesses and other interested groups to ensure that targets are specifically tailored to local needs, and reflect what can reasonably be achieved. We shall also discuss the possibility of setting local benchmarks and targets for traffic, as a proxy for other local outcomes for which there are currently no targets.
The Government recognise the importance of effective action to reduce congestion and air pollution when they affect residents in specific areas. Our statement "Tackling Congestion and Pollution" received broad support when it was published earlier this year. We are now proposing positive plans to deal with congestion and pollution and to deliver a sustainable environment at the local level, where it matters.
New clause 3 seeks to divert the Government from that track. I hope very much, therefore, that the hon. Member for Bath will be able to withdraw it.

Mr. Don Foster: I have enjoyed the 100 or so hours of debate that we have had on the Bill, and I have enormously enjoyed the Minister's contributions—particularly when he tries his regular trick of speaking very quickly indeed to try to mislead people, or at least to try to mask the more difficult things that he has to say.
The House will have noticed that the Minister said that it was absolutely appropriate for there to be local traffic reduction targets as proxies in addressing all the other issues that matter, such as congestion and pollution. I fail to understand, therefore, why he does not accept that it would be equally beneficial to have national road traffic targets as a proxy in addressing all of those issues.
The Deputy Prime Minister has set the Government a national target, and I am surprised that the Minister is not prepared to support him in reaching it. Additionally, 300 Labour Members have pledged to support such targets. It would clearly be wrong not to give them an opportunity—by pressing the new clause to the vote—to say whether they are sticking by those commitments.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 319.

Division No. 192]
[8.59 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Drew, David


Baker, Norman
Fearn, Ronnie


Ballard, Jackie
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Burnett, John
Hancock, Mike


Burstow, Paul
Harris, Dr Evan


Chidgey, David:
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cotter, Brian
Kirkwood, Archy


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Laxton, Bob


Dawson, Hilton
Livsey, Richard


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Llwyd, Elfyn




Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moore, Michael
Thompson, William


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Oaten, Mark
Tyler, Paul



Webb, Steve


Öpik, Lembit
Willis, Phil


Rendel, David


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sanders, Adrian
Sir Robert Smith and


Stunell, Andrew
Mr. Tom Brake.



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Corston, Jean


Ainger, Nick
Cousins, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cox, Tom


Alexander, Douglas
Cranston, Ross


Allen, Graham
Crausby, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cummings, John


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ashton, Joe
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Atkins, Charlotte
Dalyell, Tam


Austin, John
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Barnes, Harry
Davidson, Ian


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beard, Nigel
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Bermingham, Gerald
Dean, Mrs Janet


Berry, Roger
Denham, John


Betts, Clive
Dismore, Andrew


Blackman, Liz
Dobbin, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Donohoe, Brian H


Blizzard, Bob
Doran, Frank


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dowd, Jim


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Borrow, David
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Edwards, Huw


Bradshaw, Ben
Ennis, Jeff


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Reid, Rt Hon Frank



Fisher, Mark


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Browne, Desmond
Flint, Caroline


Buck, Ms Karen
Flynn, Paul


Burden, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gapes, Mike


Cann, Jamie
Gardiner, Barry


Caplin, Ivor
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Casale, Roger
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caton, Martin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cawsey, Ian
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Godsiff, Roger


Church, Ms Judith
Goggins, Paul


Clapham, Michael
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)



Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clelland, David
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clwyd, Ann
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Coaker, Vernon
Hanson, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Coleman, Iain
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Colman, Tony
Healey, John


Connarty, Michael
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Corbett, Robin
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hepburn, Stephen





Heppell, John
Martlew, Eric


Hesford, Stephen
Maxton, John


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hill, Keith
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hinchliffe, David
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Miller, Andrew


Hoey, Kate
Mitchell, Austin


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Moffatt, Laura


Hope, Phil
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moran, Ms Margaret


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howells, Dr Kim
Morley, Elliot


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Humble, Mrs Joan


Hurst, Alan
Mountford, Kali


Hutton, John
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mudie, George


Illsley, Eric
Mullin, Chris


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jamieson, David
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jenkins, Brian
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Norris, Dan


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)



O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Osborne, Ms Sandra



Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pendry, Tom


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pickthall, Colin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pike, Peter L


Keeble, Ms Sally
Plaskitt, James


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pollard, Kerry


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pond, Chris


Khabra, Piara S
Pope, Greg


Kidney, David
Pound, Stephen


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Primarolo, Dawn


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Purchase, Ken


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Quinn, Lawrie


Lepper, David
Rammell, Bill


Leslie, Christopher
Rapson, Syd


Levitt, Tom
Raynsford, Nick


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Linton, Martin
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rooney, Terry


Lock, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Love, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Roy, Frank


McCabe, Steve
Ruane, Chris


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ruddock, Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ryan, Ms Joan


Macdonald, Calum
Salter, Martin


McDonnell, John
Sarwar, Mohammad


McFall, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McIsaac, Shona
Singh, Marsha


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Skinner, Dennis


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McWilliam, John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mallaber, Judy
Snape, Peter


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spellar, John


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Squire, Ms Rachel




Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Steinberg, Gerry
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Stevenson, George
Tynan, Bill


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Vaz, Keith


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Ward, Ms Claire


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wareing, Robert N


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Watts, David


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
White, Brian


Stringer, Graham
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wills, Michael


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Winnick, David


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wood, Mike


Timms, Stephen
Woolas, Phil


Tipping, Paddy
Worthington, Tony


Todd, Mark
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Trickett, Jon
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Truswell, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Tellers for the Noes:


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Mr. Don Touhig.

Question accordingly negatived.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 2

VEHICLES SUBJECT TO REGULATION AS PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES

'.—(1) In section 79 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (which provides that a vehicle which is not a public service vehicle because of section 1(3) or (4) of that Act is to be treated as one for the purpose of excluding it from regulation as a private hire vehicle), for "1(3) or (4)" substitute "1(4)".

(2) After that section insert

Small PSVs subject to regulation as private hire vehicles

79A.—(1) If a small bus is being provided for hire with the services of a driver for the purpose of carrying passengers otherwise than at separate fares, it is not to be regarded as a public service vehicle for the purpose of—

(a) Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, or
(b) any local Act applying in any area in England and Wales which regulates the use of private hire vehicles provided for hire with the services of a driver for the purpose of carrying passengers and excludes public service vehicles from the scope of that regulation.

(2) If a small bus is being made available with a driver to the public for hire for the purpose of carrying passengers otherwise than at separate fares, it is not to be regarded as a public service vehicle for the purpose of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998.

(3) But subsection (1) or (2) does not apply where the vehicle is being so provided or made available in the course of a business of carrying passengers by motor vehicles all but a small part of which involves the operation of large buses.

(4) In this section—
small bus" means a public service vehicle within paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 1 of this Act; and
large buses" means public service vehicles within paragraph (a) of that subsection.

(3) In section 167(4) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (touting for hire car services: defence in case of public service vehicles), for "passengers for public service vehicles" substitute "passengers to be carried at separate fares by public service vehicles".'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 32

SCHOOL CROSSING PATROLS

'.—(1) The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is amended as follows.

(2) In sections 26 (arrangements for patrolling school crossings) and 28 (stopping of vehicles at school crossings) for the word "children", in each place where it occurs, substitute the word "pedestrians".'.—[Mr. Michael J. Foster.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 1

COMPETITION TEST FOR EXERCISE OF BUS FUNCTIONS

Functions to which Schedule applies

1.—(1) The functions to which this Schedule applies are those of—

(a) making and varying quality partnership schemes,
(b) making and varying ticketing schemes, and
(c) inviting and accepting tenders under section 89 or 91 of the Transport Act 1985 (subsidised services).

(2) For the purposes of this Schedule an authority proposes (or authorities propose) to exercise a function to which this Schedule applies—

(a) in the case of the function of making or varying a quality partnership scheme, once notice of a proposal to make or vary it has been given under section 98(1),
(b) in the case of the function of making or varying a ticketing scheme, once notice of a proposal to make or vary it has been given under section 117(1), and
(c) in the case of the function of inviting or accepting tenders under section 89 or 91 of the Transport Act 1985, once it is proposed to invite tenders under section 89(2) or 91(3) of that Act or to accept or not to accept a tender under section 89 of that Act.

Competition test

2.—(1) for the purposes of this Schedule the exercise or proposed exercise of a function to which this Schedule applies meets the competition test unless it—

(a) has or is likely to have a significantly adverse effect on competition, and
(b) is not justified by sub-paragraph (2).

(2) The exercise or proposed exercise of a function is justified if—

(a) it is with a view to achieving one or more of the purposes specified in sub-paragraph (3), and
(b) its effect on competition is or is likely to be proportionate to the achievement of that purpose or any of those purposes.

(3) The purposes referred to in sub-paragraph (2) are—

(a) securing improvements in the quality of vehicles or facilities used for or in connection with the provision of local services,
(b) securing other improvements in local services of substantial benefit to users of local services, and
(c) reducing or limiting traffic congestion, noise or air pollution.

Applications to Director for decision

3.—(1) An application may be made to the Director General of Fair Trading (in this Schedule referred to as "the Director") for him to decide whether the exercise or proposed exercise of a function to which this Schedule applies meets the competition test.

(2) An application may be made under this paragraph by—

(a) the authority or authorities by whom the function has been exercised or is proposed to be exercised, or
(b) any operator of local services who is, or is likely to be, affected by the exercise of the function.

4.—(1) If an application is made under paragraph 3 by the authority or authorities by whom a function has been exercised or is proposed to be exercised, it or they must inform any operators of local services who, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, are or are likely to be affected by the exercise of the function that the application has been made.

(2) If an application is made under paragraph 3 by an operator of local services, he must inform the authority or authorities by whom the function has been exercised or is proposed to be exercised that the application has been made.

(3) The Director must arrange for an application made under paragraph 3 to be published in such a way as he thinks most suitable for bringing it to the attention of those likely to be affected by it, unless he is satisfied that it will be sufficient for him to seek information from one or more particular persons.

(4) In determining an application made under paragraph 3, the Director must take into account any representations made to him about the application.

Investigations by Director

5. If at any time the Director considers that the exercise or proposed exercise of a function to which this Schedule applies may not meet the competition test, he may conduct an investigation.

6.—(1) For the purposes of an investigation under paragraph 5 the Director may require any person—

(a) to produce to him or to a person appointed by him, at a specified time and place, any specified document, or
(b) to provide him or such a person, at such a time and place, any specified information,
which he considers relates to any matter relevant to the investigation.

(2) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1) is to be exercised by a notice in writing indicating the subject matter and purpose of the investigation; and in this paragraph "specified" means—

(a) specified, or described, in the notice, or
(b) falling within a category which is specified, or described, in the notice.

(3) Information required to be provided sub-paragraph (1) shall be provided in the specified manner and form.

(4) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1) to require a person to produce a document includes power—

(a) to require him to provide an explanation of the document, or
(b) if the document is not produced, to require him to state, to the best of his knowledge and belief, where it is.

(5) In this paragraph "information" includes estimates and forecasts.

7.—(1) If a person refuses or fails to comply with a notice under paragraph 6, the Director may certify that fact in writing to the High Court which may enquire into the case.

(2) If after hearing—

(a) any witness who may be produced against or on behalf of the person, and
(b) any statement which may be offered in defence,
the High Court is satisfied that the person did not have a reasonable excuse for refusing or failing to comply with the notice, the High Court may punish him as if he had been guilty of contempt of court.

8.—(1) A person shall not be required under paragraph 6 to produce or disclose a privileged communication.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) "privileged communication" means a communication—

(a) between a professional legal adviser and his client, or
(b) made in connection with, or in contemplation of, legal proceedings and for the purposes of those proceedings,
which in proceedings in the High Court would be protected from disclosure on grounds of legal professional privilege.

9.—(1) No information which—

(a) has been obtained under paragraph 6, and
(b) relates to the affairs of any individual or to any particular business,
is to be disclosed during the lifetime of that individual or while that business continues to be carried on, unless the condition mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) is satisfied.

(2) The condition is that consent to the disclosure has been obtained from—

(a) the person from whom the information was obtained under paragraph 6, and
(b) if different, the individual to whose affairs the information relates or the person for the time being carrying on the business to which the information relates.

(3) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to a disclosure of information—

(a) made for the purpose of facilitating the performance of any function of the Director, a traffic commissioner or the Rail Regulator,
(b) made for the purpose of facilitating the performance of any function of the European Commission in respect of Community law about competition,
(c) made for the purpose of criminal proceedings in any part of the United Kingdom or in connection with the investigation of a criminal offence triable in any part of the United Kingdom, or
(d) made in compliance with the order of a court or tribunal.

(4) If information is disclosed to the public in circumstances in which the disclosure does not contravene sub-paragraph (1), that sub-paragraph does not prevent its further disclosure by any person.

(5) A person who contravenes this paragraph is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

10. Before the Director, as the result of an investigation under paragraph 5, makes a decision that the exercise or proposed exercise of a function does not meet the competition test, he must—

(a) give written notice to the person or persons likely to be affected by the proposed decision, and
(b) give that person or those persons an opportunity to make representations.

Decisions

11. When the Director makes a decision—

(a) on an application under paragraph 3, or
(b) after an investigation under paragraph 5,
he must publish his decision, together with his reasons for making it.

12. If the Director has determined an application under paragraph 3 by making a decision that the exercise or proposed exercise of a function to which this Schedule applies meets the competition test, he is to take no further action under this Schedule with respect to it unless—

(a) he has reasonable grounds for believing that there has been a material change of circumstance since he made his decision, or
(b) he has a reasonable suspicion that the information on which he based his decision was incomplete, false or misleading in a material particular.

Enforcement of decisions

13.—(1) if the Director has made a decision that the exercise or proposed exercise of a function to which this Schedule applies does not meet the competition test, he may give to the authority or authorities by which it was or was to be exercised such directions as he considers appropriate.

(2) A direction under sub-paragraph (1) may (in particular)—

(a) in the case of a proposal to exercise a function, include provision prohibiting the exercise of the function in the manner proposed,
(b) in the case of the exercise of the function of making or varying a quality partnership scheme or a ticketing scheme, include provision requiring the variation or revocation of the scheme,
(c) in the case of the exercise of the function of inviting tenders under section 89(2) or 91(3) of the Transport Act 1985, include provision requiring the variation or withdrawal of the invitation, and
(d) in the case of the exercise of the function of accepting or not accepting a tender under section 89 or 91 of that Act, include provision requiring the variation or termination of any agreement entered into by accepting the tender or requiring the acceptance of any tender.

(3) A direction under sub-paragraph (1) must be given in writing.

(4) If an authority fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a direction under sub-paragraph (1), the Director may apply to the High Court for an order requiring the authority to comply with the direction within a time specified in the order.

(5) An order under sub-paragraph (4) may provide for all of the costs of, or incidental to, the application for the order to he borne by the authority.

False or misleading information

14.—(1) if information is provided by a person to the Director in connection with his functions under this Schedule, the person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) the information is false or misleading in a material particular, and
(b) the person knows that it is or is reckless as to whether it is.

(2) If a person—

(a) provides any information to another person, knowing the information to be false or misleading in a material particular, or
(b) recklessly provides to another person any information which is false or misleading in a material particular,
knowing that the information is to be used for the purpose of providing information to the Director in connection with his functions under this Schedule, the person is guilty of an offence.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

Defamation

15. For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any decision made or notice given by the Director in the exercise of any of his functions under this Schedule.

Fees

16.—(1) The Director may charge fees in connection with the exercise by him of any of his functions under this Schedule.

(2) Different fees may be charged in connection with different functions and in different circumstances.

(3) An application under paragraph 3 is not to be regarded as duly made unless any appropriate fee is paidf.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 2

REVIEW OF ACCESS CHARGES BY REGULATOR

The Schedule to be inserted after Schedule 4 to the Railways Act 1993 is as follows—

SCHEDULE 4A

REVIEW OF ACCESS CHARGES BY REGULATOR

Introductory

1.—(1) for the purposes of this Schedule an access charges review is a review by the Regulator of the terms of an access agreement, or of the terms of an access agreement and the conditions of any linked licence, as to—

(a) the amounts payable under the access agreement by one of the parties to the other; and
(b) the times at which, and manner in which, those amounts are payable.

(2) In this Schedule "linked licence", in relation to an access agreement, means a licence of which the holder is—

(a) the facility owner, or installation owner, who is a party to the access agreement; or
(b) any other person who has an estate or interest in, or right over, the railway facility or network installation to which the access agreement relates.

Main provisions

2.—(1) The procedure for the implementation of an access charges review shall be as provided for by paragraphs 4 to 16 of this Schedule.

(2) And any procedure relating to the implementation of an access charges review for which the access agreement or any linked licence makes provision shall not apply.

3. An access charges review may include a consideration of—

(a) the time at which the next access charges review in relation to the access agreement may be undertaken; and
(b) circumstances in which an access charges review in relation to the access agreement may be undertaken before that time.

Review notice

4.—(1) The implementation of an access charges review shall be initiated by the Regulator giving notice (a "review notice")—

(a) stating his conclusions on the access charges review and the reasons why he reached those conclusions;
(b) specifying the relevant changes which he proposes to make for or in connection with giving effect to those conclusions;
(c) stating, in relation to each of the proposed relevant changes, the date on which he proposes that it should come into operation; and
(d) specifying the period (not being less than six weeks from the date of publication of the notice) within which objections with respect to any of the proposed relevant changes, or the date on which it is proposed that it should come into operation, may be made by a person within sub—paragraph (4)(a) or (b) below.

(2) In this Schedule "relevant changes", in relation to an access agreement, means—

(a) amendments of the access agreement;
(b) modifications of the conditions of any linked licence; or
(c) both such amendments and such modifications; and references to the making of relevant changes are, in the case of amendments of the access agreement, references to directing the parties to the access agreement to make the amendments to the access agreement.

(3) The review notice shall be given—

(a) by publishing it in such manner as the Regulator considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the proposed relevant changes; and
(b) by serving a copy on the persons specified in subparagraph (4) below.

(4) The persons referred to in sub—paragraph (3)(b) above are—

(a) the facility owner, or installation owner, who is a party to the access agreement;
(b) any other person who has an estate or interest in, or right over, the railway facility or network installation to which the access agreement relates and who the Regulator considers ought to be given a copy; and
(c) the beneficiary.

(5) In this Schedule "the beneficiary"—

(a) in relation to an access contract, has the meaning given by section 17(6) of this Act; and
(b) in relation to an installation access contract, has the meaning given by section 19(10) of this Act.

Notice of agreement

5.—(1) if no objections are duly made by a person within paragraph 4(4)(a) or (b) above (or any that are so made are withdrawn), the Regulator shall give notice (a "notice of agreement") stating that fact.

(2) The notice of agreement shall be given—

(a) by publishing it in such manner as the Regulator considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the proposed relevant changes; and
(b) by serving a copy on the beneficiary.

Termination notice

6.—(1) After a copy of a notice of agreement is served on the beneficiary, he may give notice (a "termination notice") terminating the access agreement.

(2) The termination notice shall specify the date on which the access agreement is to terminate.

(3) The termination notice shall be given by serving a copy on—

(a) the facility owner or installation owner;
(b) any other person who has an estate or interest in, or right over, the railway facility or network installation and who received a copy of the review notice; and
(c) the Regulator.

(4) The date specified by the termination notice as that on which the access agreement is to terminate shall be neither—

(a) less than six months, nor
(b) more than one year,
after the copy of the termination notice is served on the facility owner or installation owner.

(5) The termination notice may not be given after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the copy of the notice of agreement is served on the beneficiary.

Review implementation notice

7.—(1) After a copy of a notice of agreement is served on the beneficiary and the time within which a termination notice may be given by him has expired—

(a) if he has not given a termination notice (or has withdrawn any notice which he has given), the Regulator shall (unless he acts under paragraph 8(2) below) give a review implementation notice; or
(b) if he has given (and not withdrawn) a termination notice, the Regulator may give such a notice.

(2) A review implementation notice is a notice stating that the Regulator's conclusions on the access charges review are to be implemented as proposed in the review notice.

(3) The review implementation notice shall—

(a) specify the relevant changes which the Regulator is making; and
(b) state, in relation to each of the relevant changes, the date on which it comes into operation.

(4) The review implementation notice shall be given—

(a) by publishing it in such manner as the Regulator considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the relevant changes; and
(b) by serving a copy on the persons on whom a copy of the review notice was served, the Authority and the Health and Safety Executive.

New review notice or Competition Commission reference

8.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) objections are duly made by a person within paragraph 4(4)(a) or (b) above (and not withdrawn); or
(b) although no objections are duly made by a person within paragraph 4(4)(a) or (b) above (or any that are so made are withdrawn), relevant objections are duly made (and not withdrawn) in relation to a similar review notice relating to another access agreement.

(2) The Regulator may—

(a) give a new review notice under paragraph 4 above; or
(b) make a reference to the Competition Commission under paragraph 9 below.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above—

(a) "relevant objections", in relation to another access agreement, means objections by a person who is within paragraph 4(4)(a) or (b) above in relation to that other access agreement; and
(b) one review notice is similar to another if they make provision which, in the opinion of the Regulator, is to broadly the same effect.

(4) Before acting under sub-paragraph (1) above, the Regulator shall consider the objections referred to in that sub-paragraph.

(5) If the Regulator gives a new review notice under paragraph 4 above by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(a) above, the references in that paragraph and paragraph 7(2) above to his conclusions on the access charges review shall be read in relation to the new notice as references to those conclusions as modified since the previous review notice (in particular as the result of any objections or representations made in relation to it).

Reference to Competition Commission

9.—(1) A reference to the Competition Commission under this paragraph shall be so framed as to require them to investigate and report on the questions specified in subparagraph (2) below.

(2) Those questions are—

(a) whether the matters considered on the access charges review which are specified in the reference operate, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest; and
(b) if so, whether the effects adverse to the public interest which those matters have or may be expected to have could be remedied or prevented by the making of relevant changes.

(3) The Regulator may, at any time, by notice given to the Competition Commission vary a reference under this paragraph—

(a) by adding to the matters specified in the reference; or
(b) by excluding from the reference some or all of the matters so specified.

(4) On receipt of such a notice the Competition Commission shall give effect to the variation.

(5) The Regulator may specify in a reference under this paragraph, or a variation of such a reference, for the purpose of assisting the Competition Commission in carrying out the investigation on the reference—

(a) any effects adverse to the public interest which, in his opinion, the matters specified in the reference or variation have or may be expected to have; and
(b) any relevant changes by which, in his opinion, those effects could be remedied or prevented.

(6) As soon as practicable after making a reference under this paragraph, or a variation of such a reference, the Regulator—

(a) shall serve a copy of the reference or variation on the persons on whom a copy of the review notice was served; and
(b) shall publish particulars of the reference or variation in such manner as he considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the reference or variation to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it.

(7) For the purpose of assisting the Competition Commission in carrying out an investigation on a reference under this paragraph, the Regulator shall give to the Competition Commission any information in his possession which relates to matters falling within the scope of the investigation and—

(a) is requested by the Competition Commission for that purpose; or
(b) is information which, in his opinion, it would be appropriate for that purpose to give to the Competition Commission without any such request;
and any other assistance which the Competition Commission may require, and which it is within his power to give, in relation to any such matters.

(8) For the purpose of carrying out such an investigation, the Competition Commission shall take account of any information given to them for that purpose under sub-paragraph (7) above.

(9) In determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether any particular matter operates, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest, the Competition Commission shall have regard to the matters as respects which duties are imposed on the Regulator by section 4 of this Act.

10.—(1) The provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below are to apply in relation to references under paragraph 9 above as if—

(a) the functions of the Competition Commission in relation to those references were functions under the 1973 Act;
(b) the expression "merger reference" included a reference under that paragraph; and
(c) in section 70 of the 1973 Act references to the Secretary of State were references to the Regulator and the reference to three months were a reference to six months.

(2) The provisions are—

(a) sections 70 (time limit for report on merger), 85 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents) and 93B (false or misleading information) of the 1973 Act;
(b) Part II of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998 (performance of the Competition Commission's general functions); and
(c) section 24 of the 1980 Act (modification of provisions about performance of such functions).

Report on reference

11.—(1) In making a report on a reference under paragraph 9 above, the Competition Commission shall include in the report—

(a) definite conclusions on the questions comprised in the reference; and
(b) such an account of their reasons for those conclusions as in their opinion is expedient for facilitating a proper understanding of those questions and of their conclusions.

(2) Where they conclude that any of the matters specified in the reference operate, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest, they shall specify in the report the effects adverse to the public interest which those matters have or may be expected to have.

(3) Where they conclude that any adverse effects so specified could be remedied or prevented by the making of relevant changes, they shall in the report—

(a) specify the relevant changes by which those effects could be remedied or prevented; and
(b) state, in relation to each of the relevant changes, the date on which it should come into operation.

(4) A date stated in the report as that on which a relevant change should come into operation may be a date before the report is made, provided that it is not before the earliest date specified in the review notice for the coming into operation of a relevant change proposed in it.

(5) Section 82 of the 1973 Act (general provisions as to reports) shall apply in relation to reports of the Competition Commission on references under paragraph 9 above as it applies to reports of the Competition Commission under that Act.

(6) A report of the Competition Commission on a reference under paragraph 9 above shall be made to the Regulator.

(7) The Regulator shall, on receiving such a report, send a copy of it to the Secretary of State and the Authority.

(8) Not less than 14 days after that copy is received by the Secretary of State, the Regulator shall send a copy to each of the persons on whom a copy of the review notice was served.

(9) Not less than 24 hours after complying with sub-paragraph (8) above, the Regulator shall publish the report in such manner as he considers appropriate for bringing the report to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it.

(10) If it appears to the Secretary of State that the publication of any matter in the report would be against the public interest or the commercial interests of any person, he may, before the end of the period of 14 days after he receives his copy of the report, direct the Regulator to exclude that matter from—

(a) every copy of the report sent under sub-paragraph (8) above, and
(b) the version of the report published under sub-paragraph (9) above.

Changes following report

12.—(1) Where a report of the Competition Commission on a reference under paragraph 9 above—

(a) includes conclusions to the effect that any of the matters specified in the reference operate, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest,
(b) specifies effects adverse to the public interest which those matters have or may be expected to have,
(c) includes conclusions to the effect that those effects could be remedied or prevented by the making of relevant changes, and
(d) specifies relevant changes by which those effects could be remedied or prevented,

the Regulator shall, subject to the following provisions of this paragraph and paragraph 13 below, make such relevant changes as appear to him requisite for the purpose of remedying or preventing the adverse effects specified in the report.

(2) Before making relevant changes under this paragraph, the Regulator shall have regard to the relevant changes specified in the report.

(3) Before making relevant changes under this paragraph, the Regulator shall give notice—

(a) stating that he proposes to make the relevant changes and setting out their effect,
(b) stating the reasons why he proposes to make the relevant changes,
(c) stating, in relation to each of the proposed relevant changes, the date on which he proposes that it should come into operation, and
(d) specifying the period (not being less than 28 days from the date of publication of the notice) within which representations or objections with respect to the proposed relevant changes may be made,
and shall consider any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn.

(4) A notice under sub-paragraph (3) above shall be given—

(a) by publishing the notice in such manner as the Regulator considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the matters to which the notice relates to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the making of the relevant changes; and
(b) by serving a copy of the notice on the persons on whom a copy of the review notice was served.

(5) Where (after considering any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn) the Regulator proposes to make relevant changes under this paragraph, he shall give notice to the Competition Commission—

(a) setting out the relevant changes he proposes to make;
(b) stating the reasons why he proposes to make the relevant changes; and
(c) stating, in relation to each of the proposed relevant changes, the date on which he proposes that it should come into operation.

(6) The Regulator shall include with the notice under sub-paragraph (5) above a copy of any representations and objections which have been considered.

(7) A date stated in a notice under sub-paragraph (3) or (5) above as that on which a relevant change should come into operation may be a date before the notice is given, provided that it is not before the earliest date specified in the review notice for the coming into operation of a relevant change proposed in it.

(8) If the period within which a direction may be given by the Competition Commission under paragraph 13 below expires without such a direction being given, the Regulator shall make the relevant changes set out in the notice under sub-paragraph (5) above.

(9) If a direction is given by the Competition Commission under paragraph 13(1)(b) below, the Regulator shall make such of those relevant changes as are not specified in the direction.

(10) As soon as practicable after making relevant changes under this paragraph, the Regulator shall send a copy of the relevant changes to the Authority and the Health and Safety Executive.

Competition Commission's power to veto changes

13.—(l) The Competition Commission may, within the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which they are given notice under paragraph 12(5) above, give a direction to the Regulator—

(a) not to make the relevant changes set out in the notice; or
(b) not to make such of those relevant changes as are specified in the direction.

(2) The Secretary of State may, if an application is made to him by the Competition Commission within that period of four weeks, extend the period within which a direction may be given under this paragraph to one of six weeks beginning with the day on which the Competition Commission are given notice under paragraph 12(5) above.

(3) The Competition Commission may give a direction under this paragraph only if the relevant changes to which it relates do not appear to them requisite for the purpose of remedying or preventing the adverse effects specified in their report on the reference under paragraph 9 above.

(4) If the Competition Commission give a direction under this paragraph, they shall give notice—

(a) setting out the relevant changes contained in the notice given under paragraph 12(5) above;
(b) setting out the direction; and
(c) stating the reasons why they are giving the direction.

(5) A notice under sub-paragraph (4) above shall be given—

(a) by publishing the notice in such manner as the Competition Commission consider appropriate for the purpose of bringing the matters to which the notice relates to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the direction; and
(b) by serving a copy of the notice on the persons on whom a copy of the review notice was served.

Making of changes by Competition Commission

14.—(1) if the Competition Commission give a direction under paragraph 13 above, they may themselves make such relevant changes as appear to them requisite for the purpose of remedying or preventing—

(a) the adverse effects specified in their report on the reference under paragraph 9 above; or
(b) such of those adverse effects as would not be remedied or prevented by the relevant changes made by the Regulator under paragraph 12(8) above.

(2) In exercising the function conferred by sub-paragraph (1) above, the Competition Commission shall have regard to the matters as respects which duties are imposed on the Regulator by section 4 of this Act.

(3) Before making relevant changes under this paragraph, the Competition Commission shall give notice—

(a) stating that they propose to make the relevant changes and setting out their effect,
(b) stating the reasons why they propose to make the relevant changes,
(c) stating, in relation to each of the proposed relevant changes, the date on which they propose that it should come into operation, and
(d) specifying the period (not being less than 28 days from the date of publication of the notice) within which representations or objections may be made,
and shall consider any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn.

(4) A date stated in a notice under sub-paragraph (3) above as that on which a relevant change should come into operation may be a date before the notice is given, provided that it is not before the earliest date specified in the review notice for the coming into operation of a relevant change proposed in it.

(5) A notice under sub-paragraph (3) above shall be given—


(a) by publishing the notice in such manner as the Competition Commission consider appropriate for the purpose of bringing the matters to which the notice relates to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the making of the relevant changes; and
(b) by serving a copy of the notice on the persons on whom a copy of the review notice was served.

(5) As soon as practicable after making any relevant changes under this paragraph, the Competition Commission shall send a copy of those relevant changes to the Regulator, the Authority and the Health and Safety Executive.

Paragraphs 13 and 14: supplementary

15.—(l) The provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below are to apply in relation to the exercise by the Competition Commission of their functions under paragraphs 13 and 14 above as if—

(a) in section 82(1) and (2) of the 1973 Act references to a report of the Competition Commission under that Act were references to a notice under paragraph 13(4) or 14(3) above;
(b) in section 85 of that Act references to an investigation on a reference made to the Competition Commission were references to an investigation by the Competition Commission for the purposes of the exercise of their functions under those paragraphs; and
(c) in section 93B of that Act references to the functions of the Competition Commission under that Act were references to their functions under those paragraphs.

(2) The provisions are—

(a) sections 82(1) and (2) (general provisions as to reports), 85 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents) and 93B (false or misleading information) of the 1973 Act;
(b) Part II of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998 (performance of the Competition Commission's general functions); and
(c) section 24 of the 1980 Act (modification of provisions about performance of such functions).

(3) For the purpose of assisting the Competition Commission in exercising their functions under paragraphs 13 and 14 above, the Regulator shall give to the Competition Commission any information in his possession which relates to matters relevant to the exercise of those functions and—

(a) is requested by the Competition Commission for that purpose; or
(b) is information which, in his opinion, it would be appropriate for that purpose to give to the Competition Commission without any such request;
and any other assistance which the Competition Commission may require, and which it is within his power to give, in relation to any such matters.

(4) For the purpose of exercising those functions, the Competition Commission shall take account of any information given to them for that purpose under sub-paragraph (3) above.

Termination notice in response to proposals after reference

16.—(l) Where a notice is served on the beneficiary under paragraph 12(3) or 14(3) above, he may give notice (a "post-reference termination notice") terminating the access agreement.

(2) The post-reference termination notice shall specify the date on which the access agreement is to terminate.

(3) The post-reference termination notice shall be given by serving a copy on—

(a) the facility owner or installation owner;
(b) any other person who has an estate or interest in, or right over, the railway facility or network installation and who received a copy of the review notice; and
(c) the Regulator.

(4) The date specified by the post-reference termination notice as that on which the access agreement is to terminate shall be neither—

(a) less than six months, nor
(b) more than one year,
after the copy of the post-reference termination notice is served on the facility owner or installation owner.

(5) The post-reference termination notice may not be given after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the copy of the notice under paragraph 12(3) or 14(3) above is served on the beneficiary.".'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 3

TRANSFERS: TAX

PART I

INTERPRETATION

1.—(1) In this Schedule—
the 1988 Act" means the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988,
the 1990 Act" means the Capital Allowances Act 1990,
the 1992 Act" means the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992,
the Capital Allowances Acts" has the same meaning as in the Tax Acts,
fixture" has the same meaning as in Chapter VI of Part II of the 1990 Act,
franchise company" means any body corporate which is, or is to be, the franchisee or the franchise operator under a franchise agreement, and
qualifying transfer" means a transfer which is a relevant transfer for the purposes of any of Parts II to VI of this Schedule.

(2) So far as it relates to corporation tax, this Schedule is to be construed as one with the Corporation Tax Acts.

(3) So far as it relates to capital allowances, this Schedule is to be construed as one with the Capital Allowances Acts.

PART II

TRANSFERS TO SRA FROM FRANCHISING DIRECTOR, SECRETARY OF STATE AND REGULATOR

Interpretation

2. In this Part of this Schedule—
relevant transfer" means a transfer of property, rights or liabilities by virtue of—

(a) section 192,
(b) a scheme under paragraph 1 of Schedule 14, or
(c) a scheme under paragraph 31 of Schedule 16,
transferee", in relation to a relevant transfer, means the Authority, and
transferor", in relation to a relevant transfer, means the person from whom the property, rights or liabilities are transferred.

Chargeable gains: general

3. For the purposes of the 1992 Act a disposal by virtue of provision made under paragraph 34(a) of Schedule 16 is to be taken to be for a consideration such that no gain or loss accrues to the person making the disposal.

Chargeable gains: disposal of debts

4.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if in the case of a relevant transfer—

(a) a debt owed to the transferor is transferred to the transferee, and
(b) the transferor would, apart from this paragraph, be the original creditor in relation to that debt for the purposes of section 251 of the 1992 Act (disposal of debts).

(2) The 1992 Act is to have effect as if the transferee (and not the transferor) were the original creditor for those purposes.

Capital allowances for machinery and plant

5.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to property if—

(a) the property is plant or machinery to which a relevant transfer relates,
(b) the property would be treated for the purposes of the Capital Allowances Acts as disposed of by the transferor to the transferee on the transfer taking effect, and
(c) the relevant order or scheme contains provision for the transferee to be taken for the purposes of those Acts to have incurred capital expenditure of an amount specified in or determined in accordance with the order or scheme on the provision of the property.

(2) For the purposes of those Acts—

(a) the transferee is to be taken to have incurred capital expenditure of that amount on the provision of the property for the purposes for which it is used by the transferee on and after the taking effect of the transfer,
(b) the property is to be taken as belonging to the transferee in consequence of the transferee having incurred that expenditure, and
(c) in the case of a fixture, the expenditure which falls to be treated as incurred by the transferee is to be taken for the purposes of section 54 of the 1990 Act to be incurred by the giving of a consideration consisting in a capital sum of that amount.

(3) In sub-paragraph (1)(c) "the relevant order or scheme" means—

(a) in the case of a transfer by virtue of section 192, an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument, or
(b) in the case of a transfer by virtue of a scheme under paragraph 1 of Schedule 14 or paragraph 31 of Schedule 16, the scheme concerned.

(4) A provision mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(c) for the determination of an amount may include provision—

(a) for a determination to be made by the Secretary of State in a manner described in the order or scheme,
(b) for a determination to be made by reference to factors so described or to the opinion of a person so described, and
(c) for a determination to be capable of being modified (on one or more occasions) in a manner and in circumstances so described.

(5) The Treasury's consent is required for the making or modification of a determination under a provision mentioned in subparagraph (1)(c).

(6) The transferee's consent is also required for such a modification after the relevant transfer takes effect.

(7) If there is a determination or a modification of a determination under a provision mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(c) all necessary adjustments—

(a) must be made by making assessments or by repayment or discharge of tax, and
(b) must be made despite any limitation on the time within which assessments may be made.

Capital allowances for machinery and plant: connected persons

6. For the purposes of Part II of the 1990 Act references in that Part to a transaction (however described) between connected persons within the meaning of section 839 of the 1988 Act are not to include references to a relevant transfer.

Loan relationships

7.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if as a result of a relevant transfer the transferee replaces, or (if the transferor had been a company) would have replaced, the transferor as a party to a loan relationship.

(2) Chapter II of Part IV of the Finance Act 1996 is to have effect in relation to any period beginning with the time the relevant transfer takes effect as if—

(a) the transferee had been a party to the loan relationship at the time the transferor became, or (if the transferor had been a company) would have become, a party to the loan relationship and at all times since that time, and
(b) the loan relationship to which the transferee is a party after the time the transfer takes effect is the same loan relationship as that to which, by virtue of paragraph (a), it is treated as having been a party before that time.

(3) Expressions used in this paragraph and in Chapter II of Part IV of the Finance Act 1996 have the same meanings in this paragraph as in that Chapter.

PART III

TRANSFERS FROM BR TO SRA

Interpretation

8. In this Part of this Schedule—
relevant transfer" means a transfer of property, rights or liabilities by virtue of—

(a) paragraph 11 of Schedule 17, or
(b) a scheme under paragraph 1 of Schedule 18,
transferee", in relation to a relevant transfer, means the Authority, and
transferor", in relation to a relevant transfer, means the Board.

Chargeable gains: general

9. For the purposes of the 1992 Act a disposal—

(a) constituted by a relevant transfer, or
(b) by virtue of provision made under paragraph 4 of Schedule 18,
is to be taken (in relation to the person to whom the disposal is made as well as the person making the disposal) to be for a consideration such that no gain or loss accrues to the person making the disposal.

Chargeable gains: restriction of losses

10.—(1) if there has been a disposal of an asset—

(a) constituted by a relevant transfer, or
(b) by virtue of provision made under paragraph 4 of Schedule 18,
subsection (8) of section 41 of the 1992 Act (which applies that section to cases where assets have been acquired without gain or loss) is to have effect as if the asset had been disposed of and acquired in circumstances mentioned in that subsection.

(2) This paragraph is not to prejudice paragraph 9.

Chargeable gains: groups

11.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if a company ("the degrouped company")—

(a) acquired an asset from another company at any time when both were members of the same group of companies ("the old group"), and

(b) ceases by virtue of a relevant transfer to be a member of the old group.

(2) Section 179 of the 1992 Act (company ceasing to be member of group) is not to treat the degrouped company as having by virtue of the transfer sold and immediately reacquired the asset.

(3) If sub-paragraph (2) applies to an asset, that section is to have effect on and after the first subsequent occasion on which the degrouped company ceases to be a member of a group of companies ("the new group"), otherwise than by virtue of a qualifying transfer, as if the degrouped company and the company from which it acquired the asset had been members of the new group at the time of acquisition.

(4) If, disregarding any preparatory transactions, a company would be regarded for the purposes of section 179 of the 1992 Act (and, accordingly, of this paragraph) as ceasing to be a member of a group of companies by virtue of a qualifying transfer, it is to be regarded for those purposes as so doing by virtue of the qualifying transfer and not by virtue of any preparatory transactions.

(5) In this paragraph "preparatory transaction" means anything done under or by virtue of this Part of this Act for the purpose of initiating, advancing or facilitating the qualifying transfer in question.

(6) Expressions used in this paragraph and in section 179 of the 1992 Act have the same meanings in this paragraph as in that section.

Chargeable gains: disposal of debts

12.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if in the case of a relevant transfer—

(a) a debt owed to the transferor is transferred to the transferee, and
(b) the transferor would, apart from this paragraph, be the original creditor in relation to that debt for the purposes of section 251 of the 1992 Act (disposal of debts).

(2) The 1992 Act is to have effect as if the transferee (and not the transferor) were the original creditor for those purposes.

Continuity in relation to capital allowances etc where trade transferred

13.—(1) if, apart from this paragraph—

(a) the transferor would be treated for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts as having ceased, by virtue of a relevant transfer taking effect, to carry on any trade, and
(b) the transferee would be treated as having begun, on that transfer taking effect, to carry it on,
the trade is not to be treated as permanently discontinued, nor a new trade as set up, for the purposes of the allowances and charges provided for by the Capital Allowances Acts, but sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) are to apply.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), in a case falling within sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) there are to be made to or on the transferee in accordance with the Capital Allowances Acts all such allowances and charges as would, if the transferor had continued to carry on the trade, have fallen to be made to or on the transferor; and
(b) the amount of any such allowance or charge is to be computed as if—

(i) the transferee had been carrying on the trade since the transferor began to do so; and
(ii) everything done to or by the transferor had been done to or by the transferee (but so that the relevant transfer itself, so far as it relates to any assets in use for the purpose of the trade, shall not be treated as giving rise to any such allowance or charge).

(3) For the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts, only such amounts (if any) as may be specified in or determined in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument are to be allocated to the transferee in respect of expenditure by


reference to which capital allowances may be made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) in relation to anything to which the transfer relates.

(4) Sub-paragraph (2) is to affect the amounts falling to be taken into account in relation to the transferor as expenditure by reference to which capital allowances may be made only so far as necessary to give effect to a reduction of any such amount by a sum equal to so much of that amount as is allocated to the transferee as mentioned in sub-paragraph (3).

(5) An order under sub-paragraph (3) may include provision—

(a) for a determination to be made by the Secretary of State in a manner described in the order,
(b) for a determination to be made by reference to factors so described or to the opinion of a person so described, and
(c) for a determination to be capable of being modified (on one or more occasions) in a manner and in circumstances so described.

(6) The Treasury's consent is required for the making or modification of a determination of any such amount as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (5).

(7) The transferee's consent is also required for such a modification after the relevant transfer takes effect.

(8) In determining whether sub-paragraph (1) has effect in relation to a relevant transfer in a case where—

(a) the transferor continues to carry on any trade or part of a trade after the transfer takes effect, or
(b) the transferee was carrying on any trade before the transfer takes effect,
the trade or part of a trade which is continued, or was being carried on, shall for the purposes of that sub-paragraph be treated in relation to any trade or part of a trade which is transferred by virtue of the transfer as a separate trade and shall accordingly be disregarded.

(9) If there is a determination or a modification of a determination for any purposes of this paragraph, all necessary adjustments—

(a) must be made by making assessments or by repayment or discharge of tax, and
(b) must be made despite any limitation on the time within which assessments may be made.

Capital allowances for machinery and plant

14.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to property if—

(a) the property is plant or machinery to which a relevant transfer relates,
(b) paragraph 13 does not apply in relation to the transfer of the property to the transferee,
(c) the property would be treated for the purposes of the Capital Allowances Acts as disposed of by the transferor to the transferee on the transfer taking effect, and
(d) the scheme concerned contains provision for the disposal value of the property to be taken for the purposes of those Acts to be of an amount specified in or determined in accordance with the scheme.

(2) For the purposes of those Acts—

(a) the provision mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(d) is to have effect (instead of section 26(1) or 59 of the 1990 Act) for determining an amount as the disposal value of the property or the price at which a fixture is to be treated as sold,
(b) the transferee is to be taken to have incurred capital expenditure of that amount on the provision of the property for the purposes for which it is used by the transferee on and after the taking effect of the transfer,
(c) the property is to be taken as belonging to the transferee in consequence of the transferee having incurred that expenditure, and

(d) in the case of a fixture, the expenditure which falls to be treated as incurred by the transferee is to be taken for the purposes of section 54 of the 1990 Act to be incurred by the giving of a consideration consisting in a capital sum of that amount.

(3) A provision mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(d) for the determination of an amount may include provision—

(a) for a determination to be made by the Secretary of State in a manner described in the scheme,
(b) for a determination to be made by reference to factors so described or to the opinion of a person so described, and
(c) for a determination to be capable of being modified (on one or more occasions) in a manner and in circumstances so described.

(4) The Treasury's consent is required for the making or modification of a determination under a provision mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(d).

(5) The transferee's consent is also required for such a modification after the relevant transfer takes effect.

(6) If there is a determination or a modification of a determination under a provision mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(d) all necessary adjustments—

(a) must be made by making assessments or by repayment or discharge of tax, and
(b) must be made despite any limitation on the time within which assessments may be made.

Capital allowances for machinery and plant: connected persons

15. For the purposes of Part II of the 1990 Act references in that Part to a transaction (however described) between connected persons within the meaning of section 839 of the 1988 Act are not to include references to a relevant transfer.

Leased assets

16.—(1) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) apply for the purposes of section 781 of the 1988 Act (assets leased to traders and others) if the interest of the lessor or the lessee under a lease, or any other interest in an asset, is transferred to a person under a relevant transfer.

(2) The transfer is to be treated as made without any capital sum having been obtained in respect of the interest by the transferor; and this is so despite section 783(4) of that Act.

(3) If the interest is an interest under a lease, payments made by the transferor under the lease before the transfer takes effect are to be treated as if they had been made under that lease by the transferee.

(4) Sub-paragraph (5) applies for the purposes of section 781 of the 1988 Act if a lease, or any other interest in an asset, is granted by virtue of provision made under paragraph 4 of Schedule 18.

(5) The grant is to be treated as made without any capital sum having been obtained in respect of the lease, or interest, by the grantor; and this is so despite section 783(4) of that Act.

(6) No charge is to arise under section 781(1) of the 1988 Act by virtue of section 783(2) of that Act in a case where the capital sum mentioned in section 781(1)(b)(i) or (ii) of that Act is the consideration obtained (or treated by section 783(4) of that Act as obtained) by the transferor on a disposal by virtue of a relevant transfer of securities of a subsidiary of the transferor.

(7) Expressions used in this paragraph and in sections 781 to 785 of the 1988 Act have the same meanings in this paragraph as in those sections.

Loan relationships

17.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if, as a result of a relevant transfer, the transferee replaces the transferor as a party to a loan relationship.

(2) Chapter II of Part IV of the Finance Act 1996 is to have effect in relation to any period beginning with the time the relevant transfer takes effect as if—

(a) the transferee had been a party to the loan relationship at the time the transferor became a party to the loan relationship and at all times since that time, and
(b) the loan relationship to which the transferee is a party after the time the transfer takes effect is the same loan relationship as that to which, by virtue of paragraph (a), it is treated as having been a party before that time.

(3) Expressions used in this paragraph and in Chapter II of Part IV of the Finance Act 1996 have the same meanings in this paragraph as in that Chapter.

Charge to tax under Case I of Schedule D

18.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of computing the profits or losses of the transferor and the transferee under Case I of Schedule D in respect of any trade or part of a trade transferred by a relevant transfer in relation to any period beginning with the time the transfer takes effect.

(2) The trade or part of a trade transferred is to be treated as having been, at the time of its commencement and at all times since that time, a separate trade carried on by the transferee.

(3) The trade carried on by the transferee after the time the transfer takes effect is to be treated as the same trade as that which, by virtue of sub-paragraph (2), it is treated as having carried on before that time.

(4) This paragraph is subject to paragraphs 13 and 17.

PART IV

TRANSFERS TO SECRETARY OF STATE FROM SRA AND BR

Interpretation

19. In this Part of this Schedule
relevant transfer" means a transfer of property, rights or liabilities by virtue of—

(a) a scheme under paragraph 1 of Schedule 20 under which the property, rights or liabilities are transferred to the Secretary of State, or
(b) a scheme under paragraph 1 of Schedule 23,
transferee", in relation to a relevant transfer, means the Secretary of State, and
transferor", in relation to a relevant transfer, means the person from whom the property, rights or liabilities are transferred.

Chargeable gains: groups

20.—(l) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if a company ("the degrouped company")—

(a) acquired an asset from another company at any time when both were members of the same group of companies ("the old group"), and
(b) ceases by virtue of a relevant transfer to be a member of the old group.

(2) Section 179 of the 1992 Act (company ceasing to be member of group) is not to treat the degrouped company as having by virtue of the transfer sold and immediately reacquired the asset.

(3) If, disregarding any preparatory transactions, a company would be regarded for the purposes of section 179 of the 1992 Act (and, accordingly, of this paragraph) as ceasing to he a member of a group of companies by virtue of a relevant transfer, it is to be regarded for those purposes as so doing by virtue of the relevant transfer and not by virtue of any preparatory transactions.

(4) In this paragraph "preparatory transaction" means anything done under or by virtue of this Part of this Act for the purpose of initiating, advancing or facilitating the relevant transfer in question.

(5) Expressions used in this paragraph and in section 179 of the 1992 Act have the same meanings in this paragraph as in that section.

Capital allowances: actual consideration to be the disposal value

21.—(1) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) apply for the purposes of Part I of the 1990 Act, and the other provisions of that Act which are relevant to that Part, if there is a disposal by virtue of a relevant transfer of the relevant interest in—

(a) an industrial building or structure, or
(b) a qualifying hotel or a commercial building or structure.

(2) The disposal is to be treated as a sale of that relevant interest.

(3) The sale moneys in respect of that sale are to be taken—

(a) if a capital sum is received by the transferor or a person connected with the transferor by way of consideration or compensation in respect of the disposal, to be an amount equal to that capital sum, or
(b) if no such capital sum is received, to be nil.

(4) Sections 157 and 158 of that Act (sales between connected persons or without change of control) are not to have effect in relation to that sale.

(5) Sub-paragraph (6) applies for determining, in the case of a disposal of machinery or plant by virtue of a relevant transfer, the amount which (in consequence of that disposal) is to be brought into account as the disposal value of that machinery or plant for the purposes of section 24 of the 1990 Act (balancing adjustments).

(6) The amount is, subject to section 26(2) and (3) of that Act (disposal value of machinery or plant not to exceed capital expenditure incurred on its provision) to be taken—

(a) if a capital sum is received by the transferor or a person connected with the transferor by way of consideration or compensation in respect of the disposal, to be an amount equal to that capital sum, or
(b) if no such capital sum is received, to be nil.

(7) Sub-paragraph (8) applies if, in consequence of a disposal by virtue of a relevant transfer, a fixture is treated by section 57(2) of the 1990 Act as ceasing to belong to a person at any time.

(8) The amount which, in consequence of that disposal, is to be brought into account as the disposal value of the fixture for the purposes of section 24 of that Act is, subject to section 26(2) and (3) of that Act, to be taken—

(a) if a capital sum is received by the transferor or a person connected with the transferor by way of consideration or compensation in respect of the disposal, to be an amount equal to that portion of that capital sum which falls (or, if the person to whom the disposal is made were entitled to an allowance, would fall) to be treated for the purposes of Part II of that Act as expenditure incurred by that person on the provision of the fixture, or
(b) if no such capital sum is received, to be nil.

(9) Sub-paragraphs (3), (6) and (8) have effect despite any other provision of the Capital Allowances Acts.

Leased assets

22.—(1) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) apply for the purposes of section 781 of the 1988 Act (assets leased to traders and others) if the interest of the lessor or the lessee under a lease, or any other interest in an asset, is transferred to a person under a relevant transfer.

(2) The transfer is to be treated as made without any capital sum having been obtained in respect of the interest by the transferor; and this is so despite section 783(4) of that Act.

(3) If the interest is an interest under a lease, payments made by the transferor under the lease before the transfer takes effect are to be treated as if they had been made under that lease by the transferee.

(4) Sub-paragraph (5) applies for the purposes of section 781 of the 1988 Act if a lease, or any other interest in an asset, is granted by the transferor by virtue of provision made under paragraph 5 of Schedule 20 or paragraph 4 of Schedule 23.

(5) The grant is to be treated as made without any capital sum having been obtained in respect of the lease, or interest, by the transferor; and this is so despite section 783(4) of that Act.

(6) No charge is to arise under section 781(1) of the 1988 Act by virtue of section 783(2) of that Act in a case where the capital sum mentioned in section 781(1)(b)(i) or (ii) of that Act is the consideration obtained (or treated by section 783(4) of that Act as obtained) by the transferor on a disposal by virtue of a relevant transfer of securities of a subsidiary of the transferor.

(7) Expressions used in this paragraph and in sections 781 to 785 of the 1988 Act have the same meanings in this paragraph as in those sections.

PART V

TRANSFERS FROM SRA TO FRANCHISE COMPANY

Interpretation

23. In this Part of this Schedule—
relevant transfer" means a transfer of property, rights or liabilities by virtue of a scheme under paragraph 1 of Schedule 20 under which the property, rights or liabilities are transferred to a franchise company,
transferee", in relation to a relevant transfer, means the franchise company to whom the property, rights or liabilities are transferred, and
transferor", in relation to a relevant transfer, means the person from whom the property, rights or liabilities are transferred.

Chargeable gains: disposals not to be treated as made at market value

24.—(1) Section 17 of the 1992 Act (disposals and acquisitions treated as made at market value) is not to have effect in relation to—

(a) a disposal constituted by a relevant transfer or a disposal by virtue of provision made under paragraph 5 of Schedule 20, or
(b) the acquisition made by the person to whom the disposal is made.

(2) But sub-paragraph (1) does not apply—

if the person making the disposal is connected with the person making the acquisition, or
in the case of a disposal by virtue of provision made under paragraph 5 of Schedule 20, if the disposal is made by or to a person other than the transferor or the transferee.

(3) If sub-paragraph (1) applies to the disposal of an asset, the disposal is to be taken (in relation to the person making the acquisition as well as the person making the disposal) to be—

(a) in a case where consideration in money or money's worth is given by the person making the acquisition or on his behalf in respect of the vesting of the asset in him, for a consideration equal to the amount or value of that consideration, or
(a) in a case where no such consideration is given, for a consideration of nil.

Chargeable gains: groups

25.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if a company ("the degrouped company")—

(a) acquired an asset from another company at any time when both were members of the same group of companies ("the old group"), and
(b) ceases by virtue of a relevant transfer to be a member of the old group.

(2) Section 179 of the 1992 Act (company ceasing to be member of group) is not to treat the degrouped company as having by virtue of the transfer sold and immediately reacquired the asset.

(3) If sub-paragraph (2) applies to an asset, that section is to have effect on and after the first subsequent occasion on which the degrouped company ceases to be a member of a group of companies ("the new group"), otherwise than by virtue of a qualifying transfer,

as if the degrouped company and the company from which it acquired the asset had been members of the new group at the time of acquisition.

(4) If, disregarding any preparatory transactions, a company would be regarded for the purposes of section 179 of the 1992 Act (and, accordingly, of this paragraph) as ceasing to be a member of a group of companies by virtue of a qualifying transfer, it is to be regarded for those purposes as so doing by virtue of the qualifying transfer and not by virtue of any preparatory transactions.

(5) In this paragraph "preparatory transaction" means anything done under or by virtue of this Part of this Act for the purpose of initiating, advancing or facilitating the qualifying transfer in question.

(6) Expressions used in this paragraph and in section 179 of the 1992 Act have the same meanings in this paragraph as in that section.

Chargeable gains: disposal of debts

26.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if in the case of a relevant transfer—

(a) a debt owed to the transferor is transferred to the transferee, and
the transferor would, apart from this paragraph, be the original creditor in relation to that debt for the purposes of section 251 of the 1992 Act (disposal of debts).

(2) The 1992 Act is to have effect as if the transferee (and not the transferor) were the original creditor for those purposes.

Capital allowances: actual consideration to be the disposal value

27.—(l) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) apply for the purposes of Part I of the 1990 Act, and the other provisions of that Act which are relevant to that Part, if there is a disposal by virtue of a relevant transfer of the relevant interest in—

(a) an industrial building or structure, or
(b) a qualifying hotel or a commercial building or structure.

(2) The disposal is to be treated as a sale of that relevant interest.

(3) The sale moneys in respect of that sale are to be taken—

(a) if a capital sum is received by the transferor or a person connected with the transferor by way of consideration or compensation in respect of the disposal, to be an amount equal to that capital sum, or
(b) if no such capital sum is received, to be nil.

(4) Sections 157 and 158 of that Act (sales between connected persons or without change of control) are not to have effect in relation to that sale.

(5) Sub-paragraph (6) applies for determining, in the case of a disposal of machinery or plant by virtue of a relevant transfer, the amount which (in consequence of that disposal) is to be brought into account as the disposal value of that machinery or plant for the purposes of section 24 of the 1990 Act (balancing adjustments).

(6) The amount is, subject to section 26(2) and (3) of that Act (disposal value of machinery or plant not to exceed capital expenditure incurred on its provision) to be taken—

(a) if a capital sum is received by the transferor or a person connected with the transferor by way of consideration or compensation in respect of the disposal, to be an amount equal to that capital sum, or
(b) if no such capital sum is received, to be nil.

(7) Sub-paragraph (8) applies if, in consequence of a disposal by virtue of a relevant transfer, a fixture is treated by section 57(2) of the 1990 Act as ceasing to belong to a person at any time.

(8) The amount which, in consequence of that disposal, is to be brought into account as the disposal value of the fixture for the purposes of section 24 of that Act is, subject to section 26(2) and (3) of that Act, to be taken—

(a) if a capital sum is received by the transferor or a person connected with the transferor by way of consideration or compensation in respect of the disposal, to be an amount equal to that portion of that capital sum which


falls (or, if the person to whom the disposal is made were entitled to an allowance, would fall) to be treated for the purposes of Part II of that Act as expenditure incurred by that person on the provision of the fixture, or
(b) if no such capital sum is received, to be nil.

(9) Sub-paragraphs (3), (6) and (8) have effect despite any other provision of the Capital Allowances Acts.

Leased assets

28.—(1) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) apply for the purposes of section 781 of the 1988 Act (assets leased to traders and others) if the interest of the lessor or the lessee under a lease, or any other interest in an asset, is transferred to a person under a relevant transfer.

(2) The transfer is to be treated as made without any capital sum having been obtained in respect of the interest by the transferor; and this is so despite section 783(4) of that Act.

(3) If the interest is an interest under a lease, payments made by the transferor under the lease before the transfer takes effect are to be treated as if they had been made under that lease by the transferee.

(4) Sub-paragraph (5) applies for the purposes of section 781 of the 1988 Act if a lease, or any other interest in an asset, is granted by the transferor by virtue of provision made under paragraph 5 of Schedule 20.

(5) The grant is to be treated as made without any capital sum having been obtained in respect of the lease, or interest, by the transferor; and this is so despite section 783(4) of that Act.

(6) No charge is to arise under section 781(1) of the 1988 Act by virtue of section 783(2) of that Act in a case where the capital sum mentioned in section 781(1)(b)(i) or (ii) of that Act is the consideration obtained (or treated by section 783(4) of that Act as obtained) by the transferor on a disposal by virtue of a relevant transfer of securities of a subsidiary of the transferor.

(7) Expressions used in this paragraph and in sections 781 to 785 of the 1988 Act have the same meanings in this paragraph as in those sections.

Loan relationships

29.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if, as a result of a relevant transfer, the transferee replaces the transferor as a party to a loan relationship.

(2) Chapter II of Part IV of the Finance Act 1996 is to have effect in relation to any period beginning with the time the relevant transfer takes effect as if—

(a) the transferee had been a party to the loan relationship at the time the transferor became a party to the loan relationship and at all times since that time, and
the loan relationship to which the transferee is a party after the time the transfer takes effect is the same loan relationship as that to which, by virtue of paragraph (a), it is treated as having been a party before that time.

(3) Expressions used in this paragraph and in Chapter II of Part IV of the Finance Act 1996 have the same meanings in this paragraph as in that Chapter.

PART VI

TRANSFERS OF FRANCHISE ASSETS

Interpretation

30. In this Part of this Schedule—
relevant transfer" means a transfer of property, rights or liabilities by virtue of a scheme under paragraph 2 of Schedule 20 under which the property, rights or liabilities are transferred from a person which is, or has been, a franchise company,
transferee", in relation to a relevant transfer, means the person to whom the property, rights or liabilities are transferred, and

transferor", in relation to a relevant transfer, means the person from whom the property, rights or liabilities are transferred.

Chargeable gains: disposals not to be treated as made at market value

31.—(1) Section 17 of the 1992 Act (disposals and acquisitions treated as made at market value) is not to have effect in relation to—

(a) a disposal constituted by a relevant transfer or a disposal by virtue of provision made under paragraph 5 of Schedule 20, or
(b) the acquisition made by the person to whom the disposal is made.

(2) But sub-paragraph (1) does not apply—

(a) if the person making the disposal is connected with the person making the acquisition, or
(b) in the case of a disposal by virtue of provision made under paragraph 5 of Schedule 20, if the disposal is made by or to a person other than the transferor or the transferee.

(3) If sub-paragraph (1) applies to the disposal of an asset, the disposal is to be taken (in relation to the person making the acquisition as well as the person making the disposal) to be—

(a) in a case where consideration in money or money's worth is given by the person making the acquisition or on his behalf in respect of the vesting of the asset in him, for a consideration equal to the amount or value of that consideration, or
(b) in a case where no such consideration is given, for a consideration of nil.

Chargeable gains: groups

32.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if a company ("the degrouped company")—

(a) acquired an asset from another company at any time when both were members of the same group of companies ("the old group"), and
ceases by virtue of a relevant transfer to be a member of the old group.

(2) Section 179 of the 1992 Act (company ceasing to be member of group) is not to treat the degrouped company as having by virtue of the transfer sold and immediately reacquired the asset.

(3) If sub-paragraph (2) applies to an asset, that section is to have effect on and after the first subsequent occasion on which the degrouped company ceases to be a member of a group of companies ("the new group"), otherwise than by virtue of a qualifying transfer, as if the degrouped company and the company from which it acquired the asset had been members of the new group at the time of acquisition.

(3) If, disregarding any preparatory transactions, a company would be regarded for the purposes of section 179 of the 1992 Act (and, accordingly, of this paragraph) as ceasing to be a member of a group of companies by virtue of a qualifying transfer, it is to be regarded for those purposes as so doing by virtue of the qualifying transfer and not by virtue of any preparatory transactions.

(4) In this paragraph "preparatory transaction" means anything done under or by virtue of this Part of this Act for the purpose of initiating, advancing or facilitating the qualifying transfer in question.

(5) Expressions used in this paragraph and in section 179 of the 1992 Act have the same meanings in this paragraph as in that section.

Chargeable gains: disposal of debts

33.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if in the case of a relevant transfer—

(a) a debt owed to the transferor is transferred to the transferee, and
the transferor would, apart from this paragraph, be the original creditor in relation to that debt for the purposes of section 251 of the 1992 Act (disposal of debts).

(2) The 1992 Act is to have effect as if the transferee (and not the transferor) were the original creditor for those purposes.

Capital allowances: actual consideration to be the disposal value

34.—(l) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) apply for the purposes of Part I of the 1990 Act, and the other provisions of that Act which are relevant to that Part, if there is a disposal by virtue of a relevant transfer of the relevant interest in—

(a) an industrial building or structure, or
(b) a qualifying hotel or a commercial building or structure.

(2) The disposal is to be treated as a sale of that relevant interest.

(3) The sale moneys in respect of that sale are to be taken—

(a) if a capital sum is received by the transferor or a person connected with the transferor by way of consideration or compensation in respect of the disposal, to be an amount equal to that capital sum, or
(b) if no such capital sum is received, to be nil.

(4) The sale moneys in respect of that sale are to be taken, as respects the transferee only, to include in addition an amount equal to any capital sum received by a person other than the transferor or a person connected with the transferor by way of consideration or compensation in respect of the disposal.

(5) Sections 157 and 158 of that Act (sales between connected persons or without change of control) are not to have effect in relation to that sale.

(6) Sub-paragraph (7) applies for determining, in the case of a disposal of machinery or plant by virtue of a relevant transfer, the amount which (in consequence of that disposal) is to be brought into account as the disposal value of that machinery or plant for the purposes of section 24 of the 1990 Act (balancing adjustments).

(7) The amount is, subject to section 26(2) and (3) of that Act (disposal value of machinery or plant not to exceed capital expenditure incurred on its provision) to be taken—

(a) if a capital sum is received by the transferor or a person connected with the transferor by way of consideration or compensation in respect of the disposal, to be an amount equal to that capital sum, or
if no such capital sum is received, to be nil.

(8) Sub-paragraph (9) applies if, in consequence of a disposal by virtue of a relevant transfer, a fixture is treated by section 57(2) of the 1990 Act as ceasing to belong to a person at any time.

(9) The amount which, in consequence of that disposal, is to be brought into account as the disposal value of the fixture for the purposes of section 24 of that Act is, subject to section 26(2) and (3) of that Act, to be taken—

(a) if a capital sum is received by the transferor or a person connected with the transferor by way of consideration or compensation in respect of the disposal, to be an amount equal to that portion of that capital sum which falls (or, if the person to whom the disposal is made were entitled to an allowance, would fall) to be treated for the purposes of Part II of that Act as expenditure incurred by that person on the provision of the fixture, or
if no such capital sum is received, to be nil.

(10) Sub-paragraphs (3), (4), (7) and (9) have effect despite any other provision of the Capital Allowances Acts.

Loan relationships

35.—(1) Paragraph 11 of Schedule 9 to the Finance Act 1996 is not to have effect in a case where, as a result of a relevant transfer, the transferee replaces the transferor as a party to a loan relationship.

(2) Expressions used in this paragraph and in Chapter II of Part IV of the Finance Act 1996 have the same meanings in this paragraph as in that Chapter.

PART VII

OTHER PROVISIONS CONCERNING TRANSFERS

Chargeable gains: value shifting

(36) Nothing in this Part of this Act and nothing done under it is to be regarded as a scheme or arrangement for the purposes of section 30 of the 1992 Act (tax-free benefits).

Chargeable gains: consequential amendment

(37) In section 35(3)(d) of the 1992 Act (list of provisions for transfers treated as made without gain or loss), after sub-paragraph (xiii) (inserted by paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 7 to this Act) insert—
(xiv) paragraphs 3 and 9 of Schedule (Transfers: Tax) to the Transport Act 2000".

Group relief

(38) The existence of the powers of the Secretary of State or the Authority under this Part of this Act is not to be regarded (and nothing else in that Part is to be regarded) as—

(a) constituting arrangements falling within section 410(1) or (2) of the 1988 Act (arrangements for transfer of company to another group or consortium), or
(b) constituting option arrangements for the purposes of paragraph 5B of Schedule 18 to the 1988 Act.

Modifications of transfer schemes

39.—(l) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—

(a) the effect of a scheme under paragraph 1 of Schedule 14, paragraph 31 of Schedule 16, paragraph I of Schedule 18 or paragraph 1 of Schedule 23 is modified by an order made by the Secretary of State, or
(b) the effect of a scheme under paragraph I of Schedule 20 under which the property, rights or liabilities are transferred to the Secretary of State or a franchise company is modified by an agreement made under paragraph 15 of that Schedule.

(2) The Corporation Tax Acts (including this Schedule) are to have effect as if—

(a) the scheme had been made as modified, and
(b) anything done by or in relation to the preceding holder had (so far as relating to the property, rights or liabilities affected by the modification) been done by or in relation to the subsequent holder.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) the preceding holder is the person who without the modification—

(a) became (under the scheme concerned) entitled or subject to the property, rights or liabilities affected by the modification, or
(b) remained (despite the scheme concerned) entitled or subject to the property, rights or liabilities affected by the modification,
as the case may be.

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) the subsequent holder is the person who (in consequence of the modification) becomes, or resumes being, entitled or subject to the property, rights or liabilities affected by the modification.

Stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax

40.—(1) Stamp duty is not to be chargeable on—

(a) a scheme under paragraph 1 of Schedule 14, paragraph 31 of Schedule 16 or paragraph I of Schedule 18, 20 or 23, or
an instrument or agreement which is certified to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue by the Secretary of State as made in pursuance of such a scheme.

(2) No such scheme, and no instrument or agreement which is certified as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), is to be taken to be duly stamped unless—

(a) it has, in accordance with section 12 of the Stamp Act 1891, been stamped with a particular stamp denoting that it is not chargeable with that duty or that it is duly stamped, or
(b) it is stamped with the duty to which it would be liable, apart from this paragraph.

(3) Section 12 of the Finance Act 1895 is not to operate to require—

(a) the delivery to the Inland Revenue of a copy of this Act, or
(b) the payment of stamp duty under that section on any copy of this Act,
and is not to apply in relation to an instrument on which, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), stamp duty is not chargeable.

(4) An agreement to transfer chargeable securities, as defined in section 99 of the Finance Act 1986, to a person specified in sub-paragraph (2)(a) to (c) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 20 is not to give rise to a charge to stamp duty reserve tax if the agreement is made for the purposes of, or for purposes connected with, a scheme under that paragraph.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 232

COMMENCEMENT

Amendments made: No. 330, in page 138, line 11, at end insert—
'(4) Section (Review of access charges by Regulator) (and Schedule (Review of access charges by Regulator)) and section 225 (and Schedule 25) come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.'.

No. 331, in page 138, line 11, at end insert—
'(5) In section (Amendments of pension protection provisions), subsections (1) and (3) to (5), and subsections (2) and (8) so far as relating to subsections (3) to (5), shall be treated as having come into force on 10th May 2000.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 236

EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 122, in page 139, line 12, after second "Parts" insert—
'and section (Vehicles subject to regulation as private hire vehicles)'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Amendment made: No. 418, in page 139, line 12, after second "Parts", insert—
'and section (School crossing patrols)'.—[Mr. Michael J. Foster].

Amendment made: No. 332, in page 139, line 19, leave out "Section 218 extends" and insert—
'Sections 218 and (Taxation of transfers), paragraph 13A of Schedule 13 and Schedule (Transfers: Tax) extend'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 27

REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS

Amendments made: No. 280, in page 267, column leave out line 34.

No. 281, in page 267, line 54, at end insert—


'1966 c. 28.
Docks and Harbours Act 1966.
Section 47.'.

No. 282, in page 269, line 43, at end insert—


'1981 c. 56.
Transport Act 1981.
In Schedule 4, paragraph 1(3).'.

No. 283, in page 269, line 51 column 3, leave out "39(1)" and insert "39".

No. 284, in page 269, line 52, at end insert—




'Section 41.




Section 42.'.

No. 333, in page 270, line 39, column 3, at end insert—




'In section 13(7), the words "the Secretary of State and".'.

No. 285, in page 275, column 1 leave out lines 22 and 23.

No. 334, in page 275, line 25, column 3, at end insert—
'in paragraph 10(6)(b), the words "of the Board" (in both places), and
in paragraph 11(10), in the definition of "relevant employer", the word "or" at the end of paragraph (b) and, in paragraph (c), the words ", other than a company which is wholly owned by the Franchising Director".'.

No. 335, in page 275, line 28, at end insert—


'S.I. 1994/1432.
Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order 1994.
In article 9(2), the words ", except to the extent specified in paragraph (3)," and the word "relevant" (in both places).




Article 13.




Article 14.'.

No. 286, in page 276, line 31, at end insert—


'2000 c. 00.
Freedom of Information Act 2000.
In Schedule 1, in Part VI, the entry relating to the British Railways Board.'.

No. 123, in page 276, line 31, at end insert—

'PART V


MISCELLANEOUS


1985 c. 67.
Transport Act 1985.
In Schedule 7, paragraph 21(10).'.

—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
First, I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in thanking all those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee which considered this important Bill. Their efforts over a long period, from mid-January 3, to early April, and again in the past 48 hours, have provided the House with the opportunity to consider on Report a Bill that has received very careful and detailed scrutiny. I pay special tribute to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who chaired the proceedings of the Standing Committee in an exceptionally able way.
The Transport Bill is an historic piece of legislation which will be seen as a landmark in transport policy for years to come. It is all about improving this country's transport system. The Bill takes a comprehensive, integrated approach to transport and puts in place new and effective measures to tackle problems, local and national. It will go a long way to reversing the past years of decline, and will help all concerned to work together to give Britain a transport system fit for the demands of the 21st century, and one of which we can be proud.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I take this opportunity to thank Ministers for responding so positively to the concerns that I raised about the Strathclyde passenger transport authority. I refer in particular to clauses 185 and 217. There is still a problem where Scottish Ministers and the Strategic Rail Authority are concerned, but I should like to write to the Minister about it. In the meantime, I offer my thanks to him and his colleagues.

Mr. Raynsford: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. Of course we will consider carefully any further representations that he makes.
Our proposals to establish a public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services have not been entirely free from controversy. However, I believe that the whole House agrees that change is essential if our air traffic control system is to continue to meet ever-increasing demands on our airspace without prejudicing safety.
The operational capability of NATS is recognised as world class; the service already manages some of the world's most congested airspace. The number of flights that NATS handles continues to increase each year, however, and the public-private partnership is essential to bring in the funding and investment, as well as the project management skills, necessary to allow NATS to manage the increased volumes and densities safely and effectively.
We believe that the public-private partnership will provide the United Kingdom with the world's best air traffic services in terms of safety, efficiency and capacity to meet increasing demand. Safety, quite rightly, is at the front of everyone's minds. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister emphasised yesterday, there is no question of safety being compromised under the PPP. As he stressed, safety and national security are subject to fundamental and emphatic safeguards.
The PPP will free NATS' investment and management decisions from Government financing constraints, and introduce new funding and new project and financial management skills to deliver significant improvements to UK air traffic services. For these reasons, we believe that this innovative PPP is the best possible option for NATS, for the country and for airline users.
The Bill is also about providing better local transport, particularly buses. The Bill gives local authorities important new powers and duties.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Like other Members, I have consistently pressed Ministers on the O-licence operator anomaly, which is that such drivers are not given

medical and police checks by local authorities. Will the Minister confirm that new clause 2 deals with that anomaly?

Mr. Raynsford: I am pleased to give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I congratulate him on his important role in campaigning for that change.
Local authorities will have important new powers and duties. They will be required to draw up local transport plans that examine all aspects of transport in their areas. They must also prepare a bus strategy. The Bill contains new powers on bus quality partnerships, quality contracts, integrated ticketing and timetable information. Those measures will help to give passengers a quality bus service that is reliable and easy to use. We are also fulfilling our pledge to make sure that local authorities give pensioners a cheap bus fare scheme that is at least as generous as half-fare, with a free bus pass.
We are determined to tackle the problems of road congestion and pollution, which are the scourge of so many of our towns. The Bill gives local authorities powers to introduce road user charging or a levy on parking at the workplace. Those powers are already available to London's mayor and boroughs.
Every penny of the net revenues raised from new charges will be retained locally and ring-fenced for at least 10 years for spending on improvements to local transport. Local authorities will also be able to ask the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to introduce charges on trunk roads, if that would complement their own schemes. The Secretary of State and the Assembly will also be able to charge on large trunk road bridges and tunnels of at least 600 m where that will help to achieve integrated transport objectives or allow expensive structures to be built. Revenues from those charges will also be dedicated to spending on transport for at least 10 years.
The Bill establishes the Strategic Rail Authority and provides for more effective regulation of the railway industry. The SRA will put railways at the centre of an integrated transport system, with proper public accountability and investment, and that puts the passenger's interest at the top of the agenda. The SRA' s mission will be to promote use and development of the rail network, and to contribute to the development of an integrated transport system. It will give the industry the long-term strategic focus to plan for growth. The shadow SRA has already set to work on strategic planning. The Bill plugs the loopholes in the previous Government's shambolic rail legislation and provides tougher enforcement powers to protect the passenger.
The Government believe that Britain's stability and steady growth cannot be sustained without a safe, modern and efficient transport system. Our plans for transport are ambitious but straightforward: we intend to transform our transport system to make it rival any in Europe, and no one should doubt that commitment.
We have put in place the right policy framework. The Bill will provide the necessary powers, and investment is coming on-stream. Private investment by the rail industry has doubled since 1996–97. Some 1,300 extra services are being run daily to meet demand. Bus quality partnerships in 130 towns and cities are increasing bus usage by 10 to 20 per cent. Our new statutory provisions will make it possible to build on those successes. Bus industry


investment has doubled and is running at £380 million a year. Again, our measures will help ensure that that trend continues.
An extra £280 million for transport spending this year was announced in the Budget, and in the summer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport will publish a 10-year transport plan. The plan will set out the transport outcomes that we want to see over the next 10 years, together with the investment strategy for both the public and private sectors that is needed to deliver them.
The House tonight completes its consideration of an historic Bill that will play a crucial role in ensuring that the United Kingdom has the safe, modern, effective integrated transport system that it needs and deserves. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Jenkin: The Minister asked us not to doubt the Government's commitment to improving the transport infrastructure, but we do. We have seen the Deputy Prime Minister and even the Prime Minister trotting round the country to celebrate the opening of great Tory transport projects, such as the Heathrow Express, the Croydon tramlink and the Jubilee line extension. Those were the projects that we commenced and initiated.
Let us consider the commitment of this Government and their spending figures. In a Tory year, 1994–95, we were committed to spending £8.5 billion on transport. In the present year, the Government are spending less than £6 billion on transport, despite the punitive new levels of taxation that they have imposed on motorists.
Every transport line of expenditure has been cut. In the Tory year I cited, we were spending £1.2 billion on trunk road and motorway improvements; this Government are spending a mere £305 million. On local transport grants and credit approvals, we were spending £1.3 billion; this Government are spending barely £1 billion. We were spending £906 million on London Transport; this Government are spending a mere £251 million. On highways maintenance—the top priority of this Government—we spent £3.3 billion in 1994–95. The Government, with all the extra taxation that they are raising, are spending less than £3 billion. That underlines the scale of the Government's miserable commitment to improving the transport infrastructure.
As we near the end of our proceedings on the Bill, I must record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), the Chairman of the Standing Committee, and to his fellow Chairman, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton)—and also my thanks for the inexhaustible patience of the Clerks and officials in the Box and the good humour of the Standing Committee in general.
My particular thanks go to my small but hard-working band of hon. Friends, because ours has been an arduous task. We brought the Bill to the House with 237 clauses, 27 schedules and 276 pages. In the past two days, we have added a small telephone directory of Government amendments and new clauses. That underlines the fundamental shambles that is this Bill. It has been substantially rewritten during its passage.
The Bill contains some good clauses—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."]—such as, the clauses that were inspired by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest

Mrs. Laing) on the impounding of vehicles. However, despite such extensive redrafting, it remains a bad Bill—and a bad Bill that is made worse by the fact that, in essence, it is four Bills rolled into one. It reflects the Government's mud-pie political philosophy.
The transfer of National Air Traffic Services to the private sector was rightly dubbed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) as a punk privatisation. We support the separation of regulation and operation, but the Government's public-private partnership was rightly described in the report on NATS by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee as the worst of all possible options.
Far from being some great innovation, the introduction of local transport plans is merely the extension of state bureaucracy to local authorities. It will require large volumes of guidance and ever larger volumes of local authority transport plans. Local authorities will be mired in ever more compulsory bureaucratisation and centralisation, because local transport plans have to fit the bill laid down by the Secretary of State. If they do not do so, he will not give them his support. That is centralisation and that is why the Labour chairman of the Local Government Association has complained about the "silent and strange death" of local government.
Another part of the Bill deals with re-regulation of the bus industry, whose investment record and expansion in its privatised and deregulated form the Minister was celebrating a few moments ago. The Government are now re-regulating that industry. We support the principle of quality partnerships, but we fail to see what quality contracts will bring to the bus industry. Indeed, the conflict between the regulation of quality contracts and the competition legislation is a complete mess.
Then we have the introduction of yet further taxes on the motorist: congestion taxes and parking taxes—a tax on business. As if it were not enough that the Government are taxing the motorist £36 billion in the current financial year, so that £1 in every £7 that the Government now spend is raised from the motorist, they are insisting on carrying through this vendetta against the motorist.
There is some evidence that the Government realise that their policy is somewhat unpopular. That is why, when the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), during his mayoral campaign, said,
I am determined that congestion charging will come in by August 2001,
the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) responded, in his manifesto:
I will not impose congestion charges in my first term.
The Government are trying to kick the policy into the long grass before and after the general election, but we now know that the new deputy mayor of London, Nicky Gavron, has openly defied the Prime Minister, who assured the House today that Labour Members of the London Assembly would honour their election pledges. Speaking on BBC News 24 this afternoon, Nicky Gavron said that congestion charges were "in principle" possible in the first term of the administration in London, and that it was only a matter of technicality. She refused to retract her comments when pressed over the Prime Minister's earlier commitment. In her own personal manifesto, she stated:
I will renew our tube system by 2010…and oppose congestion charges—


[Interruption.] Well, I wrote the press release—
until the tube has been improved.
That was the manifesto commitment given by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.
That open defiance of the Prime Minister this afternoon—just hours after he gave that assurance to the House of Commons—is a humiliation; it shows that although the hon. Member for Brent, East may not be a member of the Labour party, he is taking over the Labour party in London.
The final part of the Bill is old Labour striking back at railway privatisation. There is a role for Sir Alastair Morton in helping the industry to develop, but not for the rebirth of the old British Railways Board; not for whole new powers to direct investment; not for new powers for unlimited fines; not for powers for the interference in access agreements; and not for the restoration of the ultimate control over the industry, once again, by the Secretary of State—the Fat Controller himself.
The Bill is founded on a fundamental misapprehension: the principle that the man in Whitehall knows best. The British people know that the current man in Whitehall has done nothing to contribute to the transport of this country. The Labour party's policy is discredited; it is all spin and no delivery, as evidenced by the Government's miserable commitments on spending.
The Bill is privatisation by stealth, centralisation by stealth, re-regulation by stealth and taxation by stealth, and it is renationalisation of the railways by the back door.
Labour's transport policy is fundamentally more taxation. The Bill does nothing to address the crisis in standstill Britain that Labour is creating.

Mr. Don Foster: I add my voice to the thanks that have already been justifiably given to so many people who have been involved in the deliberations on the Bill so far.
I have been involved—as has my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore)—in nearly 110 hours of deliberations on the Bill. I have had more than enough opportunity to say what I believe about the Bill. To summarise, there are many good things in it, but, sadly, the beginning of the Bill provides for the part privatisation of National Air Traffic Services, with which we fundamentally disagree. For that reason, we shall vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

Mr. Snape: The series of sittings on the Bill has been strange and protracted. Let me start back in January. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) ambled into the Committee Room on the first day and said that he was going to—I paraphrase him—"fight the Bill tooth and nail". He said that the Bill was bare-faced effrontery. He said, "It is a flagship of the Labour Government and we are determined to oppose it". What in fact was bare-faced was the hon. Gentleman's effrontery in actually turning up and saying that, because that was the last we saw of him. The hon. Gentleman made the claim that the Bill has 230 clauses. I have counted them and he has missed some. If that represents a bare-knuckle fight even by his fairly elastic standard, no wonder the Tory party is on its knees.
It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who provided some opposition in Committee. One could not say that about the Tories. In fact, two of them—the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)—have demonstrated their consistency tonight. They missed most sittings of the Committee, and they are missing the Bill's Third Reading.
The Conservative Opposition said that they were going to fight the Bill tooth and nail. Judging by the performance that they have put up so far, they have neither the teeth nor the nails to fight it with.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman must be joking. I have not seen him for months, so I am not going to give way to him now.
I compliment my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for the way in which they have handled the opposition of the Liberal Democrats, whom I commend for providing it.
The Labour party has been talking about integration for many years. I remember voting for integration in the 1960s, at the first party conference that I attended. I am not sure whether we defined the term particularly well then or have done so since, but the Bill will achieve for the first time the integration of transport that the country so badly needs.
With or without the opposition of Conservative Members—it has largely been without it—I commend the Bill to the House. What the Government are trying to do is essential if we are to have the sort of transport system and the alleviation of congestion about which we have long talked. It is a pity that the hon. Member for North Essex has proved himself, once again, to be like so many of the occupants of the Tory Front Bench—all mouth and no trousers.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 159.

Division No. 193]
[9.32 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ainger, Nick
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bradshaw, Ben


Alexander, Douglas
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Allen, Graham


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Browne, Desmond


Ashton, Joe
Buck, Ms Karen


Atkins, Charlotte
Burden, Richard


Austin, John
Burgon, Colin


Barnes, Harry
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Bayley, Hugh
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Beard, Nigel
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Berry, Roger
Cann, Jamie


Betts, Clive
Casale, Roger


Blackman, Liz
Caton, Martin


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cawsey, Ian


Blizzard, Bob
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Chaytor, David


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Clapham, Michael


Borrow, David
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)





Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hepburn, Stephen



Heppell, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clelland, David
Hoey, Kate


Clwyd, Ann
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Coaker, Vernon
Hope, Phil


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coleman, Iain
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Colman, Tony
Howells, Dr Kim


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cox, Tom
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cranston, Ross
Hurst, Alan


Crausby, David
Hutton, John


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cummings, John
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jamieson, David


Darvill, Keith
Jenkins, Brian


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davidson, Ian
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)



Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dawson, Hilton
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Denham, John
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dismore, Andrew
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dowd, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Drew, David
Khabra, Piara S


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kidney, David


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Edwards, Huw
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Ennis, Jeff
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Fisher, Mark
Laxton, Bob


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Leslie, Christopher


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Levitt, Tom


Flint, Caroline
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Linton, Martin


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fyfe, Maria
Lock, David


Gapes, Mike
Love, Andrew


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McAvoy, Thomas


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCabe, Steve


Godman, Dr Norman A
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Godsiff, Roger
McDonagh, Siobhain


Goggins, Paul
Macdonald, Calum


Golding, Mrs Llin
McFall, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNamara, Kevin


Grocott, Bruce
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grogan, John
McWalter, Tony


Gunnell, John
McWilliam, John


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mallaber, Judy


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hanson, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Martlew, Eric


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Maxton, John


Healey, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)




Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Snape, Peter


Morley, Elliot
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Spellar, John



Squire, Ms Rachel


Mountford, Kali
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Steinberg, Gerry


Mudie, George
Stevenson, George


Mullin, Chris
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stringer, Graham


Norris, Dan
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


O'Hara, Eddie
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Temple—Morris, Peter


Palmer, Dr Nick
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pearson, Ian
Timms, Stephen


Pendry, Tom
Tipping, Paddy


Pickthall, Colin
Todd, Mark


Pike, Peter L
Trickett, Jon


Plaskitt, James
Truswell, Paul


Pollard Kerry
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pond Chris
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pope, Greg
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Twigg, Derek (Hatton)



Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tynan Bill


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Vaz, Keith


Primarolo, Dawn
Ward, Ms Claire


Purchase, Ken
Wareing, Robert N


Quinn, Lawrie
Watts, David


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
White, Brian


Rammell, Bill
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rapson, Syd
Wicks, Malcolm


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wills, Michael


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Winnick, David


Rooney, Terry
Wood, Mike


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Woolas, Phil


Rowlands, Ted
Worthington, Tony


Roy, Frank
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ruane, Chris
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wyatt, Derek


Salter, Martin


Sarwar, Mohammad
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shipley, Ms Debra
Mr. Don Touhig and


Singh, Marsha
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Brand, Dr Peter


Allan, Richard
Brazier, Julian


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Baker, Norman
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ballard, Jackie
Burns, Simon


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Burstow, Paul


Bercow, John
Butterfill, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cable, Dr Vincent


Body, Sir Richard
Cash, William


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Chidgey, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Chope, Christopher


Brady, Graham
Clappison, James


Brake, Tom
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)





Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
May, Mrs Theresa


Collins, Tim
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Cotter, Brian
Moore, Michael


Cran, James
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Moss, Malcolm


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Duncan Smith, Iain
Norman, Archie


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Oaten, Mark


Evans, Nigel
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Faber, David
Öpik, Lembit


Fabricant, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Fearn, Ronnie
Paice, James


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paterson, Owen


Foster, Don (Bath)
Pickles, Eric


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Fraser, Christopher
Prior, David


Garnier, Edward
Randall, John


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gibb, Nick
Rendel, David


Gill, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Robertson, Laurence


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gray, James
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Green, Damian
Ruffley, David


Greenway, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
St Aubyn, Nick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Sanders, Adrian


Hammond, Philip
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hancock, Mike
Shepherd, Richard


Harris, Dr Evan
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hawkins, Nick
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hayes, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Heald, Oliver
Spicer, Sir Michael


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Spring, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Steen, Anthony


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Streeter, Gary


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Stunell, Andrew


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Swayne, Desmond


Hunter, Andrew
Syms, Robert


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Key, Robert
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tonge, Dr Jenny



Townend, John


Kirkwood, Archy
Trend, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tyler, Paul


Lansley, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Letwin, Oliver
Viggers, Peter


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Walter, Robert


Lidington, David
Waterson, Nigel


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Webb, Steve


Livsey, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Llwyd, Elfyn
Whittingdale, John


Luff, Peter
Wilkinson, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Willis, Phil


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Madel, Sir David
Yeo, Tim


Major, Rt Hon John


Malins, Humfrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Mr. Stephen Day and


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Cancer Services

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Eric Illsley: I am grateful for having secured the Adjournment debate this evening, especially as it has begun at such a reasonable hour. I am less happy about the subject that I intend to raise with the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), whom I welcome back to the Dispatch Box after his visit to the Trent regional health authority this morning. I hope that his visit was productive and that he promised lots more money for that health authority.
Once again, I am raising issues of health care in my locality, specifically in the Trent region. I want to consider the failure of a succession of doctors and consultants to detect cancer in an individual until it was so far advanced that treatment will prove especially difficult.
The type of cancer is mouth cancer, which is a particularly unfortunate form. The tumour from which my constituent suffers was so large when it was diagnosed in March that he was advised that it was inoperable without the risk of losing his tongue, larynx and voice box, and thus the power of speech. If the diagnosis had not been delayed, my constituent could have had an operation much earlier. Such treatment could have been successful. I hope that he will still be able to have an operation if the current treatment is successful.
My constituent, Steven Harley, is a 41-year-old business man. He is also a personal friend; that makes the case all the more difficult. I shall explain the case in a nutshell. Mr. Harley developed throat pains, which became increasingly severe, last July. Nineteen medical examinations by 11 different doctors did not lead to a diagnosis of those throat pains as a form of mouth cancer.
Mr. Harley visited his general practitioner to complain of a sore throat. In the following 10 weeks, he saw his GP six or seven times. He had blood tests and courses of antibiotics. He was told that he was probably suffering from a virus and that he would simply have to sit it out. At that time, there was no suggestion of referral to an ear, nose and throat specialist or any offer of an MRI scan, which might have picked up the tumour. Mr. Harley suffered 10 weeks of persistent pain.
I accept that GPs cannot be expected to diagnose special types of cancer. Indeed, many GPs go through their medical careers without seeing, or dealing with, particular types of cancer. I do not therefore claim that a GP should have been able to tell Mr. Harley immediately, "Yes, it's cancer. Here's the treatment. Off you go." However, Mr. Harley asked his GP more than once, "Could this pain be a form of cancer?" He was repeatedly told that it was not. If a GP is sufficiently qualified to dismiss unequivocally an inquiry about whether a condition is cancer, he should be aware of the other side of the coin. How does he know that a condition is not cancer? If the signs exist, would he recognise them? If not, how can he simply deny that a condition is cancer? He cannot do that without knowledge about, or expertise in, cancer.
Mr. Harley has private medical insurance, which enabled him to arrange to see a specialist. He saw the specialist three times in four weeks. After those


consultations, he was told that nothing had been found and nothing could be done. Even that specialist did not even consider a scan or a referral to another specialist or anyone else. Incidentally, had Mr. Harley wanted to take advantage of an ear, nose and throat surgeon at Barnsley, he would have been unlucky. Of the two places for ENT surgeons that Barnsley had at that time, there was one vacancy. One of the surgeons had left and the other one was off sick. He would not have been able to see an ENT surgeon at Barnsley if he had wanted to do so. Even now, ENT surgery on people in Barnsley is carried out at Rotherham district general hospital. There is a locum in place at Barnsley throughout the week, but if anyone in the area has an ear, nose and throat problem between 5.30 pm on Friday and 9.30 am on Monday, he or she has to go to Rotherham. I am not happy with that.
At this stage, Mr. Harley's pain was increasing severely. It was spreading in his mouth, jaw and neck. He felt that he had to visit Barnsley district general hospital one Saturday night to ask for pain killers. He presented himself at the casualty department to ask for them so that he might have help in sleeping. He did that on several occasions. He once more returned to his general practitioner, and again he was dismissed by the practice. Through his insurance, he arranged to see privately an orthopaedic surgeon in December, thinking that something orthopaedic could be wrong with him. He was told by that surgeon that there was nothing wrong and that nothing could be done for him.
By millennium eve, or new year's eve, Mr. Harley was in so much pain that he went once again to the casualty department of Barnsley district general hospital. He described his symptoms to a junior doctor. He asked for help and particularly for pain killers because the pain was so intense. The junior doctor prescribed pain killers and sent him home.
The pain was so bad that Mr. Harley presented himself again on millennium day, or new year's day. He asked for stronger pain killers. He told the doctor that the pain killers that he had been given the previous evening were not giving him any respite and that he needed something stronger. He was then seen by a senior doctor, who took his blood pressure. He refused to give him any stronger pain killers and laughed at the idea that the pain killers that he had already been given were not sufficient to do the job. He then took Mr. Harley on one side, put his arm round his shoulder and said, "Look, if I were your brother I would tell you to forget about this, to go home and live your life." That was the attitude of the doctors at Barnsley district general hospital—go home and get a life.
I find that incredible. No one would go to a hospital on new year's eve or new year's day over the millennium period unless he or she had a real problem. However, a doctor was dismissing Mr. Harley out of hand. There were three things wrong with that doctor's approach. First, he failed absolutely to diagnose anything wrong with Mr. Harley. He refused to acknowledge that there was any possibility that he could be suffering from any sort of disease, let alone cancer.
Secondly, he would not believe the extent of the patient's pain and accordingly did not prescribe a pain killer. Thirdly, he did not refer him elsewhere so that he might get some relief. He then took Mr. Harley on one side and told him that he was imagining things, that there was nothing wrong with him and that if he went away and forgot about it, everything would be all right.
I am concerned that my constituents are being treated by a doctor with such an attitude. It is bad enough that South Yorkshire, Barnsley and the Trent region have so many problems as a consequence of the health authority's poor funding and that there has been poor performance over previous years, without having to deal with the attitude of the medical profession in certain circumstances.
Is the training and education of our doctors so bad as to produce such a response when one of my constituents presents himself in pain during a bank holiday period? Have we reached the stage when a doctor takes a person on one side and says, in effect, that he does not believe him?

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Illsley: Is knowledge of cancer really so poor in our health service? Should we believe that none of the 11 different doctors—from GPs to specialists and consultants—who were consulted on 19 occasions could not put a finger on the problem and say, "I think that this could be cancerous. I must refer you for a scan or to a specialist oncologist who knows about this condition."?
The catalogue of errors involving Mr. Harley continued. In January, he arranged another private consultation with another consultant. He had an MRI scan, but was told that nothing could be done. That MRI scan took place seven months after he had first complained about his symptoms. The specialist he saw prescribed pain-killers and gave him a return appointment. That appointment took place on 1 March this year, by which time Mr. Harley had lost two stone and had difficulty eating or speaking because of the size of the tumour, which was swelling in the back of his tongue.
That specialist referred him to an ENT surgeon in the same hospital because, at last, they had diagnosed that his problem could be mouth or throat cancer. Those were private consultations, but at least his condition was diagnosed. Unfortunately, he was told that the tumour had become too large, so he could not undergo surgery immediately. He was told that he might require operative treatment if chemotherapy and radiotherapy could not shrink the tumour. He was also told of the threat of losing his tongue, voice box or larynx.
Mr. Harley is undergoing chemotherapy and, I think, radiotherapy to try to shrink the tumour. My family and I—and, I am sure, the House—wish him well and hope that his treatment will enable operative treatment to be carried out successfully. However, during nine months, a man who had private medical insurance under which he could arrange private consultations quickly and at short notice underwent 19 examinations by 11 doctors. What would have happened to someone who was simply an NHS patient in those circumstances? I fear that that cancer would have gone undiagnosed for far longer.
Mr. Harley tells me that, when he was diagnosed with mouth cancer, he contacted Cancer Bacup, one of the cancer charities in this country, which sent him a leaflet about mouth and throat cancers. When he read about the symptoms, he realised that he had been suffering from every one. He had presented himself to doctors while suffering from the symptoms listed in the leaflet,


but 11 doctors could not equate them with cancer, while the charity could do so. If Mr. Harley's condition had been detected earlier, it could have been treated far more easily. Why was he not believed when he presented himself in such pain? Why was he not listened to? Why did none of the doctors think that he could have cancer? Why were they so sure that he was wrong and they were right? I sincerely hope that the various health authorities involved will take a good long look at themselves and ask whether what happened was good enough. The Government should consider the issue nationally and especially in the Trent region, where underfunding is always a problem. I am becoming a little tired of complaining in the Chamber about the poor health service that my constituents receive, and we now have another problem to add to all the rest that I have raised.
I should like to touch on a connected issue concerning the availability of cancer drugs, especially taxanes. There are various derivatives of that type of drug, but they are generally known as taxanes. I should like to place on record my thanks to Hugh McKinney of the campaign for effective and rational treatment, whom I met today to discuss this issue. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, there are real concerns that such drugs are not available on the NHS. I have been told this evening that they are likely to be available only to private patients, and that NHS patients will not have access to them. That is of real concern to me because the vast majority of patients in my constituency are NHS patients and will be denied access to those drugs.
I am also told that the availability of those drugs will depend on the type of cancer, and that we are likely to move from postcode prescribing to tumour-type prescribing. Whether the drug will be available will depend on the type of cancer. Even with the 6.8 per cent. much welcomed uplift in cash funding for the NHS, there will still be a problem of funding for these drugs.
This case has been a nightmare for my constituent, and he is still living it. He has been ignored, insulted and left to organise his own health care. I hope that he now gets the proper treatment that he deserves, and that my area gets a better health service than it has at present.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on obtaining this debate. He has made a compelling and moving speech on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Harley. My sympathy and that of the House goes to him for his predicament, and we send our best wishes for his future treatment, which we hope will be a success.
My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that I visited the Trent region earlier today. It is one of those ironic coincidences that I was visiting the Jasmine centre at the Doncaster royal infirmary, which is a specialist breast cancer clinic. It is a national leader in patient-centred cancer services for women suffering from breast cancer. My hon. Friend's speech reminds us all of the unacceptably wide variations in the quality of treatment and care and access to care in the NHS, which the Government are determined to tackle.
My hon. Friend told us of the delay in diagnosing Mr. Harley's cancer. He will understand that I cannot get involved in a discussion of the details of that individual

case. I understand that the Minister for Public Health will shortly reply to my hon. Friend's letter, but it is difficult for me to discuss the detail of this case.
However, I can say a little about the options available to any of our constituents who have cause for concern about the treatment they have received. First and foremost, there is the NHS complaints procedure. I understand that in this case the chief executive of the NHS trust has written to my hon. Friend's constituent and given a commitment to a thorough investigation of his concerns.
A constituent is also entitled to refer to the General Medical Council any doctors—private or NHS—whose practice gives grounds for believing that they have been negligent or incompetent. Doctors can be referred to the GMC for suspension or removal from the list.
I should like to deal with the particular points that my hon. Friend raised in the context of the Government's commitment to providing fairer and faster care as part of our determination to modernise the national health service. We want to ensure that all parts of the health and social services system work better together; to improve clinical performance and NHS productivity; to increase flexibility in training and working practices; to ensure fast and convenient access to services; to empower patients through information; and to tackle inequalities and avoidable ill health. If we do all that, we can deliver the services that we all want.
We are impatient for change, and want to see evidence of faster, fairer, more convenient services, including modern diagnostic and treatment services. We want to ensure that services are moulded to the needs of individual patients. The Budget statement announced substantial additional investment in the national health service, part of which has already been released to my hon. Friend's health authority. We have set up action teams to tackle each of the key issues, and a national plan for the NHS will be published in July, identifying the main modernisation measures and targets.
Improving cancer services must and will be an integral part of our modernisation plan. Professor Mike Richards, the national cancer director, has been asked to develop a national cancer programme setting out key objectives and deliverable outcomes for cancer care. We are determined to reduce the impact of cancer on people's lives, and to create a world-class cancer service. We have set the challenging target of reducing the death rate from cancer by 20 per cent. by 2010. We can meet it only if we have a tough programme of action involving prevention, screening, early diagnosis and high-quality treatment and care.
Patients need to have confidence in their health service, and to know that if they have symptoms of what could be cancer they can discuss them with their GP and be referred quickly and appropriately if necessary. However, although cancer is a common problem—about 220,000 cases are diagnosed each year in England and Wales—an individual GP is unlikely to see more than eight or nine cases a year. GPs must differentiate between patients whose symptoms may be those of cancer, and the much larger group who have similar symptoms but do not have cancer.
That is why we have published cancer referral guidelines for primary health-care teams this year. The guidelines are intended to enable those working in primary health care to identify the patients who are most


likely to have cancer, and to require specialist investigation urgently. They cover all cancer sites, including the head and neck, and provide incidence figures for those sites. They highlight common risk factors, and list common symptoms. They give GPs concise, useful information that is easy for them to use, helping them to ensure that people with cancer-like symptoms are referred quickly for further tests.
Although that action has already been taken, it must feature largely in my response to my hon. Friend. It is a recent initiative on the Government's part, which is clearly intended to secure consistently high-quality referrals by GPs working in primary care—and, of course, to enable those GPs to identify people who are unlikely to have cancer, or may require a less urgent referral to hospital. We will continue to support research to determine which symptoms indicate that people consulting their GPs have a higher risk of developing cancer, and which patients can be safely followed up within primary care.
That will be backed up by the significant investment that we are making in new technology in both primary and secondary care over the next three years. It will help to provide a range of networked services such as out-patient appointment booking, test result delivery and e-mail to all GPs by the end of 2002. All that will enable patients to be referred quickly to the most appropriate specialist team for the initial investigation and appropriate management of their condition.
We need to build on effective referral by ensuring that people have speedy access to services. Services should be there when people need them. Those who need treatment urgently, as many cancer patients do, should receive it on an urgent basis. In April 1999, we set a two-week waiting-time standard for all patients with suspected breast cancer whose GPs judged that the need for referral was urgent. That is the time to be taken from a patient first contacting her GP and the GP making an urgent referral for an out-patient appointment.
From April to December 1999, more than 56,000 women benefited from that high standard and 96.4 per cent. of breast cancer patients were seen within the target period. We will be rolling out that standard for all other cancers throughout the year, with lung cancer, children's cancers and leukaemia patients being the first to benefit from the two-week standard from April 2000.
It is important, too, to minimise the time that patients have to wait for diagnostic tests. We are seeing the biggest ever single cash investment in cancer equipment of £93 million of lottery money from the new opportunities fund.
Many of the investments are in the Trent region. Barnsley will receive an updated mammography X-ray machine, as requested by the clinical director of the breast screening unit, to replace a machine that is 10 years old. I understand that that will be installed and working within the next few weeks.
I understand, too, that as part of the developments in cancer services resulting from the Calman-Hine standards, Barnsley district general hospital will shortly open a purpose-built chemotherapy unit to enable patients receiving non-complex chemotherapy treatment on an out-patient basis to be cared for closer to home, rather than having to travel to Sheffield for their treatment.
Having given the broad picture about our approach to modernising cancer services and having emphasised the importance that we attach to speedy GP referral and

out-patient consultation, I should like to discuss the general mechanisms that are being put in place to tackle the performance of individual clinicians, or the failure of systems to deliver good-quality care.
Key to that is clinical governance. That process places quality at the heart of health care. We are ensuring fair access to effective, prompt, high-quality care wherever a patient is treated in the NHS by setting clear national standards, but with responsibility for delivery being taken locally through the implementation of clinical governance, backed by consistent monitoring arrangements.
Through clinical governance, we intend to ensure that we have clear lines of responsibility and accountability for the overall quality of clinical care; a comprehensive programme of quality improvement activities; clear policies aimed at managing risk; and procedures for all professional groups to identify and to remedy poor performance. We have underpinned the development of clinical governance by a new statutory duty of quality on NHS trusts, primary care trusts and health authorities, which requires them to put and to keep in place arrangements for monitoring and for improving the quality of health care that they provide.
In addition to developing clinical governance, we have reached an outline agreement with the British Medical Association in the shape of a new form of consultant contract, which will involve regular appraisal of performance. Indeed, under proposals put forward by the chief medical officer, all doctors will be subject to regular appraisal.
The chief medical officer is drawing up a report on dealing with adverse clinical incidents. That will reflect the fact that most such incidents are the result of the failure of systems, rather than simply of individuals.
As I have said, we need to ensure that patients have access to high-quality diagnosis, treatment and care services. We are committed to improving the quality of cancer services through the implementation of "Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services", the Calman-Hine report.
We have published evidence-based guidance on improving outcomes for breast, colo-rectal, lung and gynaecological cancers. Further guidance on cancers of the stomach, oesophagus and pancreas will be published in the spring, and guidance on urological, skin, haematological and head and neck cancers will be commissioned over the next two years by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
We are developing national standards and performance indicators, based on that evidence-based guidance, which will be used to deliver and to measure continuous quality improvement in a consistent manner throughout the country within a national quality management framework.
All those improvements—setting standards, publishing evidence-based guidance on treatment of cancers and developing clinical governance systems—enable us to ensure that the health service performance can be independently reviewed by the new Commission for Health Improvement, which began work in April. We have asked the commission to conduct a national review of implementation of Caiman-Hine as one of its first tasks.
My hon. Friend asked about the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the impact of its work on the availability of cancer drugs. NICE has been asked to


assess the cost effectiveness and availability of a number of anti-cancer drugs. Because of the relatively high cost of some of those drugs, some difficulties about interpreting clinical evidence and various debates, health authorities have reached different decisions on whether to fund them. That is the background to so-called postcode prescribing, which is one of the problems that we are determined to tackle.
Last week, NICE published the first of its guidance, recommending the use of paclitaxel—taxol—in ovarian cancer. Such guidance will help the NHS to focus its increasing resources on the treatments that will best improve people's health. Effective treatments will be actively promoted. As we must make the best use of NHS resources, treatments without good evidence of clinical benefits—or treatments that are more expensive than effective alternatives—would be discouraged by the NICE process.
After the Budget, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health released the £600 million of additional funding for this year, he made it perfectly clear that we expect that money to be used, among other things, to pay for the cost of implementing NICE recommendations. I do not believe that the fears that my hon. Friend expressed about what he described as tumour-based prescribing will prove to be justified. NICE

has been asked to review the evidence on the clinical cost-effectiveness of particular drugs in treating the conditions for which they have been licensed and for which there is an evidence base.
We have recently announced that, in the next year, a range of other anti-cancer drugs will go to NICE for assessment. They include three drugs for colon cancer, three drugs for lung cancer and three drugs for blood cancers, such as leukaemia. NICE will also assess some other recently licensed cancer drugs, including one for brain tumours and one for pancreatic cancer. I am certainly convinced that NICE' s work will tackle some of the unacceptable variations in access to cancer treatment and care that are currently too evident in the health service.
My hon. Friend—on the basis of what has happened to his friend and constituent—raised the very important issue of cancer services and performance of the national health service. I hope that, in this brief debate, I have been able to assure him that we have taken action to address many aspects of that issue. Although there is some way to go before we have the cancer services that we aspire to deliver, we are determined to continue to make progress month by month and year by year.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Ten o'clock.